PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Peer Review Process 

Global Health Synapse operates a rigorous, independent, and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and integrity of all published research. In a double-blind review, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. 

  1. Preliminary Editorial Review

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine: 

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope 
  • Compliance with submission and formatting guidelines 
  • Completeness of required documents and declarations 
  • Basic ethical compliance, including plagiarism screening 

Timeline: The preliminary review is typically completed within 7 days of submission. Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements may be returned to authors for revision or declined without external peer review. 

  1. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary assessment are sent for double-blind peer review. Each manuscript is evaluated by a minimum of two independent expert reviewers. Additional reviewers may be assigned if required due to subject complexity or conflicting reports. 

Reviewer Selection 

  • Reviewers are selected based on subject-matter expertise and publication record 
  • All reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest 
  • Individuals with conflicts are excluded from the review process 

Evaluation Criteria 
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on: 

  • Originality and scientific significance 
  • Methodological rigor and reproducibility 
  • Validity of data analysis and interpretation 
  • Ethical standards and compliance 
  • Clarity of presentation and scholarly writing 
  • Relevance and quality of references 
  1. Review Timeline

The typical timeline for the full peer review process is 30–45 days. Timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, the number of review rounds required, or the need for additional expert evaluation. 

The journal makes every reasonable effort to ensure timely and constructive feedback while maintaining the quality and integrity of the review process. 

  1. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment, one of the following decisions is made: 

  • Accept without revisions 
  • Accept with minor revisions 
  • Major revisions required 
  • Reject 

Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments and editorial guidance to support improvement of their manuscript. 

  1. Revisions and Re-Review

Authors submitting revised manuscripts must provide a detailed, point-by-point response to reviewer comments. Manuscripts requiring major revisions may be sent back to the original or additional reviewers for further evaluation. 

 

  1. Ethical Standards and Confidentiality

All manuscripts and associated materials are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use unpublished material for personal research. Editorial decisions are made solely on academic merit and are independent of commercial considerations. 

Any suspected ethical concerns identified during peer review are handled in accordance with COPE guidance and the journal’s Ethics and Malpractice policies. 

  1. Appeals and Queries Related to Peer Review

Authors who believe that their manuscript was not reviewed in accordance with the journal’s stated policies may submit a formal appeal. Appeals must include a clear explanation and supporting evidence. 

All appeals, review-related requests, or general inquiries should be directed to: 
Email: editor@tresearch.ee