Peer Review Policy

Double-anonymized review

JOHE uses double-anonymized peer review: author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors. Editors can access identities to administer the review. Anonymity cannot be guaranteed where subject matter, preprints or prior dissemination make a study recognizable.

Assessment and reviewer selection

The editorial office checks scope, completeness, reporting quality and ethical documentation before external review. Unsuitable submissions may be declined without external review or returned for correction. Original research is assessed by at least one national and one international reviewer, in accordance with the journal's established review requirements. Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise and independence. Suggested reviewers are subject to editorial verification and need not be invited.

Reviews address originality, study design, analysis, ethical conduct, interpretation, reporting and relevance. Reviewers advise the editor; the handling editor makes the decision. Additional specialist or statistical advice may be sought when necessary.

Decisions and revisions

Decisions may be rejection, revision or acceptance. A revision request is not a promise of acceptance. Authors must provide a point-by-point response and clearly identify changes. Revised manuscripts may undergo further review. Duration depends on reviewer availability, study complexity and revision requirements; no acceptance or completion date is guaranteed.

Editors and board members who submit manuscripts must not handle their own work or select its reviewers. An independent editor must oversee such submissions. Appeals follow the journal's appeals and complaints policy.