Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose

This Peer Review Policy establishes the model, principles, procedures, responsibilities, confidentiality rules, reviewer selection criteria, timelines, review rounds and misconduct controls governing peer review at HCMCOUJS.

Peer review is a central mechanism for:

  • assessing scholarly quality;
  • improving manuscripts;
  • supporting editorial decisions;
  • protecting research integrity;
  • detecting ethical risks;
  • strengthening journal credibility.

2. Peer Review Model

HCMCOUJS applies double-blind peer review as the default model.

Under this model:

  • authors do not know reviewer identities;
  • reviewers do not know author identities where anonymization is properly maintained;
  • editorial staff must protect reviewer and author confidentiality;
  • manuscripts must be anonymized before review where required.

In exceptional cases, HCMCOUJS may apply an alternative peer review model, provided that it is transparently disclosed, justified by legitimate reasons, and continues to ensure independence, confidentiality, and scholarly integrity.

3. Desk Review Integration

Peer review begins only after the manuscript has passed initial screening.

Initial screening includes:

  1. administrative and technical screening by the Editorial Office;
  2. format, metadata and declaration checks;
  3. scope and article-type assessment;
  4. similarity and integrity screening;
  5. AI disclosure screening;
  6. preliminary academic assessment by the handling editor or section editor.

A manuscript may be desk rejected before peer review if it:

  • is outside the journal’s aims and scope;
  • lacks minimum scholarly quality;
  • has serious ethical concerns;
  • shows signs of plagiarism, paper mill activity or AI misuse;
  • lacks mandatory declarations;
  • fails to comply with double-blind requirements;
  • is unsuitable for external review.

4. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers shall be selected based on:

  • subject expertise;
  • methodological competence;
  • publication or research experience;
  • independence from authors;
  • absence of conflicts of interest;
  • ability to review within the timeline;
  • commitment to confidentiality and ethics.

HCMCOUJS may identify reviewers through:

  • journal reviewer database;
  • editor recommendations;
  • published literature;
  • academic networks;
  • author-suggested reviewers, subject to independent verification.

Author-suggested reviewers are not binding on the journal.

HCMCOUJS shall not use reviewer suggestions where there are signs of:

  • fake identity;
  • non-institutional or unverifiable email;
  • close relationship with authors;
  • conflict of interest;
  • peer review manipulation.

5. Number of Reviewers

Normally, each manuscript shall be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers.

Additional reviewers may be invited when:

  • reviews are conflicting;
  • the manuscript is interdisciplinary;
  • there are methodological concerns;
  • ethical concerns arise;
  • a specialist opinion is required.

6. Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are confidential documents.

Reviewers, editors and editorial staff must not:

  • share manuscripts with unauthorized persons;
  • contact authors directly;
  • disclose reviewer identities;
  • use unpublished information for personal benefit;
  • upload confidential manuscripts to unauthorized AI or third-party tools.

7. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline or disclose when they have:

  • recent collaboration with authors;
  • same institution or close professional relationship;
  • personal, financial or academic conflict;
  • direct competition;
  • supervisory relationship;
  • involvement in the research;
  • prior knowledge compromising anonymity;
  • any circumstance that may affect objectivity.

Editors shall decide whether the reviewer may proceed, be replaced or be restricted.

8. Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers must:

  • provide objective, evidence-based comments;
  • avoid personal criticism;
  • respect confidentiality;
  • declare conflicts of interest;
  • complete reviews on time;
  • identify relevant ethical concerns;
  • avoid coercive citation;
  • not use manuscript content for personal research.

9. Reviewer Manipulation

Peer review manipulation includes:

  • fake reviewer identities;
  • fake reviewer emails;
  • reviewer accounts controlled by authors;
  • arranged favorable reviews;
  • undisclosed conflicts;
  • third-party manipulation;
  • submission of fabricated review reports.

HCMCOUJS ethics draft already identifies reviewer manipulation as a key misconduct category, including fake reviewers, false emails, author-controlled reviewer accounts and arranged peer review.

Possible actions include:

  • cancellation of affected reviews;
  • appointment of new reviewers;
  • rejection of manuscript;
  • removal of reviewer from database;
  • ethics investigation;
  • notification to institution;
  • post-publication review where necessary.

10. Timelines

Recommended timelines:

Stage

Timeline

Reviewer invitation response

5 working days

Round 1 review

21 working days

Re-review

14 working days

Editor synthesis after sufficient reviews

5-7 working days

Minor revision by author

14-21 working days

Major revision by author

30-45 working days

11. Review Rounds

Normally, HCMCOUJS applies up to two rounds of peer review.

A third round may be allowed when:

  • reviews remain substantially conflicting;
  • revision changes methods, data or results;
  • new ethical issues arise;
  • additional expert assessment is required.

HCMCOUJS avoids unnecessary repeated review rounds.

12. Editorial Decision after Review

Reviewer recommendations support but do not replace editorial judgment.

Possible decisions:

  • accept;
  • minor revision;
  • major revision;
  • re-review;
  • reject after review;
  • hold pending ethics investigation.

13. Related Policies

This policy shall be interpreted together with:

Policy Information

Item

Content

Policy Owner

HCMCOUJS Editorial Council

Approved by

Editor-in-Chief and HCMCOUJS Editorial Council

Version

3.0

Effective Date

May 2026

Review Cycle

Annual