Peer Review Process

Al GIZZAI: Public Health Nutrition Journal implements a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of published articles. The journal applies a double-anonymous peer review system, involving at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the submitted manuscript.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editors to assess their suitability for publication. The screening includes:

  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

  • Originality, scientific contribution, and methodological quality.

  • Compliance with manuscript formatting and author guidelines.

  • Clarity of language, academic writing, and presentation.

  • Plagiarism screening using Turnitin, with a maximum similarity index of 15%.

  • Compliance with research ethics and publication integrity standards.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned for revision or rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).

2. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are evaluated independently by at least two qualified reviewers.

The journal maintains a double-anonymous review process in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on originality, scientific significance, methodological rigor, validity of findings, clarity of presentation, and contribution to public health nutrition.

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, provide objective and constructive feedback, and disclose potential conflicts of interest.

3. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' evaluations, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted for publication.

  2. Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions.

  3. Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements and may undergo additional review.

  4. Reject Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor based on scientific merit, reviewers' recommendations, and editorial considerations.

4. Revision and Final Acceptance

Authors receiving revision requests must submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a point-by-point response to reviewers' comments within the specified deadline.

Revised manuscripts may be reassessed by the editors or returned to reviewers when necessary. Acceptance is granted only after the manuscript satisfies the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial standards.

5. Confidentiality and Publication Ethics

All manuscripts and peer review communications are treated as confidential. Editors and reviewers must uphold impartiality, research integrity, and professional ethical standards throughout the review process.

Suspected research misconduct will be addressed in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy and the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

All editorial decisions, reviewer comments, and revision requests are communicated to authors through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform or official editorial correspondence.