Peer Review Policy and Process
"Peer review" as a judgment on an academic work may affect the whole work and life an academic person and is of the utmost goal of managing a journal.
Rules of External Peer Review:
- Women's Health Bulletin uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
- All submitted manuscripts are subjected to the external peer review and editorial approval.
- Articles will be sent to at least 3 independent reviewers in the related field.
- Normally, the reviewers are blinded to the authors' identities and their affiliations while the associate editors have full access to them.
- Authors are usually notified within 1-2 months about the acceptability of their manuscript.
- Reviewers are selected based on their expertise within the topic area of the submission, and their purpose is to assist the authors and the journal by providing a critical review of the manuscript.
- After receiving the reviewers’ comments, authors are requested to send the revised article and a copy of their reply to the reviewers including the comment and explaining the replies to the questions and the changes made to the revised version. The communication regarding a specific manuscript will be done only between the journal and the designated corresponding author.
Responsibility for the Reviewers
Based on the agreement with our reviewers, they are committed to these regulations:
- Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
- Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 1000 words.
- Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
- Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
- Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.