Peer Review Policy

JMHMR uses double-anonymised external peer review for research and review manuscripts. Authors and reviewers are not routinely told one another’s identities. Public preprints or a highly specialised topic may make complete anonymity impossible.

Editorial assessment

An editor first checks scope, originality, reporting, ethical approval, consent, registration where applicable and the suitability of files for anonymous review. Submissions may be returned for technical changes or declined without external review when they do not meet the journal’s requirements.

Independent assessment

Suitable research and review papers are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Editors may seek an additional methodological or statistical opinion. Reviewers disclose competing interests, maintain confidentiality and provide reasoned, constructive comments.

Decisions and revision

The handling editor considers the evidence and reviews and recommends acceptance, minor revision, major revision or rejection. Authors must provide a point-by-point response and clearly identify changes. Revision does not guarantee acceptance; further review may be requested. The responsible editor makes the final decision.

Independence and timing

Review invitations normally allow two weeks for a response and four weeks for completion; these are working targets, not guaranteed publication times. APC payment, waiver requests, nationality and use of editing services do not influence decisions. Editors recuse themselves from conflicted submissions. Editorials, correspondence and other non-research material may receive editorial assessment; the assessment route is determined by content.

Policy enquiries: editor@jmhmr.com · Updated 1 October 2026.