Review Process

Review Process

The review process at Global Health Synapse is designed to ensure the quality, integrity, and timeliness of the published research. This process follows COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) recommendations to maintain high ethical standards and transparency. Below, we provide a detailed explanation of the review process.

1. Submission and Initial Checks

Step 1: Submission

  • Authors submit their manuscript through the journal’s online submission system.
  • The system ensures that all required files and information are provided.

Step 2: Initial Checks by Editorial Office

  • The editorial office conducts an initial screening to ensure the manuscript fits the journal’s scope and adheres to submission guidelines.
  • Manuscripts are checked for completeness, formatting, and compliance with ethical standards, including plagiarism detection using specialized software.

Step 3: Editor Assignment

  • An appropriate Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor is assigned to the manuscript based on the topic and expertise.

2. Peer Review Process

Step 4: Reviewer Selection

  • The assigned editor selects at least two reviewers with relevant expertise.
  • Reviewers are invited to review the manuscript and are provided with the abstract and any relevant information to make an informed decision.

Step 5: Reviewers Accept Invitation

  • Reviewers accept or decline the invitation within one week.
  • If a reviewer declines, the editor invites another expert to ensure the review process is not delayed.

Step 6: Double-Blind Peer Review

  • Reviewers conduct a double-blind review, where both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities are concealed.
  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, significance, methodological rigor, ethical standards, clarity, and relevance.
  • Reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommend one of the following decisions:
    • Accept
    • Minor Revisions
    • Major Revisions
    • Reject

Step 7: Reviewers Submit Reports

  • Reviewers submit their reports within four weeks through the online system.
  • Reports include detailed comments for the authors and confidential comments for the editor.

3. Editorial Decision and Revisions

Step 8: Editor’s Decision

  • The editor reviews the reviewers’ reports and makes an initial decision on the manuscript.
  • The decision could be to accept, request minor or major revisions, or reject the manuscript.
  • If revisions are needed, the editor provides consolidated feedback to the authors.

Step 9: Author Revisions

  • Authors receive the decision and reviewers’ feedback.
  • Authors revise their manuscript accordingly and resubmit it for further review.

Step 10: Revised Manuscript Review

  • The revised manuscript is reviewed by the original reviewers or new reviewers if necessary.
  • Reviewers evaluate the revisions to ensure all concerns have been addressed.

4. Final Decision and Publication

Step 11: Final Decision

  • Based on the reviewers’ feedback on the revised manuscript, the editor makes a final decision.
  • The decision could be to accept or reject the manuscript.

Step 12: Acceptance and Proofreading

  • Accepted manuscripts undergo final proofreading and typesetting.
  • Authors review the proofs for any final corrections.

Step 13: Publication

  • The final version of the manuscript is published online under a CC BY 4.0 license, ensuring open access to the research.

COPE Recommendations

Global Health Synapse adheres to the COPE guidelines to ensure ethical and transparent review processes:

  1. Integrity and Confidentiality:

    • Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process.
    • Avoid conflicts of interest by ensuring reviewers do not have recent collaborations with the authors.

  2. Transparency:

    • Provide clear and constructive feedback to authors.
    • Ensure all decisions are based on the quality and integrity of the research.

  3. Fairness:

    • Ensure unbiased review by using a double-blind peer review process.
    • Treat all submissions fairly, regardless of the authors’ backgrounds or affiliations.

  4. Ethical Standards:

    • Adhere to ethical guidelines in research and publication, including avoiding plagiarism and data fabrication.
    • Address any allegations of misconduct promptly and transparently.

By following these detailed guidelines and the COPE recommendations, Global Health Synapse ensures a rigorous, fair, and transparent review process that maintains the highest standards of academic publishing.