Peer Review Policy and Process
The Journal of New Approaches in Educational Management and Health Sciences is committed to implementing a double-blind peer review process in accordance with the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Additionally, the journal adheres to the principles and rules of publication ethics outlined in the document titled Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, which was previously published by COPE, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and updated on September 15, 2022. The journal's policies and reviewer guidelines can be found here.
Peer Review Process
The decision to publish an article is based on an initial editorial review followed by a double-blind peer review. Initially, all articles are assessed by a review committee composed of two or more editorial board members. The main purpose of this stage is to determine whether to proceed to external peer review and to make quick decisions on manuscripts that are not eligible.
Manuscripts such as "editorials" and "letters to the editor" may be accepted at this stage. In other cases, the decision is either to reject the manuscript or to send it for external review. Articles that fail to meet basic standards or are unlikely to be published despite positive peer review—for example, due to insufficient novelty or unclear relevance to the field—may be rejected early to prevent unnecessary delays in providing feedback to authors. Occasionally, a manuscript may be returned to the author with a request for revision to help editors decide whether it should be sent for review. Authors can expect a decision at this stage within 1 to 2 weeks after submission.
Articles proceeding to the review stage will be evaluated by external peer reviewers. All such manuscripts undergo double-blind review by at least three reviewers or more under the supervision of the journal’s subject editor and editor-in-chief. The journal takes all reasonable steps to ensure the author's identity remains anonymous throughout the review process, but it is the authors’ responsibility to ensure that previous publications or details do not reveal their identity.
The journal aims to complete the review process within 4 to 8 weeks after deciding to proceed, although delays can occur. Authors should allow at least 6 to 8 weeks from submission before contacting the journal. The editor reserves the right to make the final decision regarding acceptance.
Role of Reviewers
Reviewers play a crucial role in advancing the goals and enhancing the content of the journal. As part of the double-blind peer review process, reviewers are expected to never disclose their identities under any circumstances.
If a reviewer believes they lack the scientific or technical expertise to evaluate a manuscript, cannot complete the review in a timely manner, or has a conflict of interest, they must immediately decline and return the manuscript with an explanation to the editorial office.
All reviews must be treated as confidential. To suggest additional reviewers, editorial board approval is required. No reviewer should pass the manuscript to another reviewer at their discretion. If such a case occurs, the review by that individual will be canceled. Reviewers and their evaluations form the backbone of the journal’s quality process and must ensure that accepted manuscripts are original and of high quality. Reviewers should also inform the editor if they discover that the manuscript is under review at another journal.
There is no single or quick method for reviewing and analyzing a manuscript—it should be done case-by-case based on the value, quality, and innovation of the submission. In general, the following aspects may be evaluated:
Reviewers’ comments are critical in the editor’s decision to accept or reject a paper and are a key component of the peer review process. All reviewers are requested to provide detailed and unbiased evaluations to help improve the quality of the journal.
Guidance for Peer Reviewers
All submitted manuscripts undergo double-blind peer review. At the Journal of New Approaches in Educational Management and Health Sciences, we believe that peer review is the foundation for maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific research.
As a reviewer, you advise editors (subject editors or the editor-in-chief), who make the final decision (with the support of the editorial team) on all research articles and most analytical papers. The journal will inform you of the final decision. Even if an article is not accepted, constructive feedback from reviewers will be shared with authors to help them improve their work.
All unpublished articles are confidential. If you are invited to review, please do not discuss the manuscript’s content with colleagues. Upon receiving a review invitation, you must complete the journal's review form. Please respond to every invitation. If the article is outside your field or you cannot dedicate time for the review, notify the editorial office promptly so another reviewer can be assigned. At this stage, you may also recommend a qualified colleague.
Please read the journal's aims, scope, and author guidelines carefully to determine whether the manuscript is suitable. These are available on the "Journal Information" page.
Essential qualities of a good review include being helpful and constructive. Reviewers are asked to provide documented and respectful feedback. A peer reviewer must offer an objective critical assessment of the manuscript in the broadest practical context. Reviewers should make a recommendation to the editor regarding the final decision. Your report must contain detailed answers to the journal’s checklist. If revisions are needed before acceptance, provide suggestions for improvement. If you believe the manuscript is not suitable and has no potential for revision, recommend rejection.
You should also:
Reviewer scores are only visible to journal editors and their comments are shared only with authors. You should also indicate whether the manuscript requires language, grammar, punctuation, or stylistic edits in Persian or English.
Privacy and Confidentiality
In the Journal of New Approaches in Educational Management and Health Sciences, manuscripts must be reviewed with respect for author confidentiality. By submitting their work, authors entrust editors with their scientific efforts and creative output, which may impact their reputation and career. Disclosure of confidential information during the review may violate these rights. Reviewers also have confidentiality rights, which the editorial board must respect. In cases of misconduct or fraud, confidentiality may be breached deliberately for investigation, but otherwise, it must be maintained.
Editors must not disclose information about received manuscripts (including content, review status, reviewer feedback, or decisions) to anyone other than authors and reviewers. This includes legal inquiries.
The editorial board must inform reviewers that submitted manuscripts are the private intellectual property of the authors. Reviewers and editorial members should respect authors' rights by not discussing or using their work before publication. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies or share manuscripts without editor approval. Once reviews are submitted, all copies must be returned or destroyed. Editors should not retain copies of rejected papers. Reviewer comments must not be published or made public without permission from the reviewer, author, and editor.
Conflict of Interest in the Review Process
Although the journal uses double-blind peer review, many reviewers may recognize authors by their previous work. Regardless, reviewers are expected to provide fair assessments—even for work by friends or colleagues. However:
If you have doubts or concerns about conflicts of interest or ethical issues, please contact the journal office via email.
Article Submission and Review Workflow
The Journal of New Approaches in Educational Management and Health Sciences publishes scientific-research articles after initial assessment, peer review, and final approval. The article acceptance process includes the following steps:
Average Article Acceptance Time:
Approximately 8 to 12 weeks (2 to 3 months) from submission to final publication.
Important Notes: