Information for Reviewers

EJRH mainly publishes Original Articles and Case Reports. Articles in both categories are subject to a peer review. Peer-review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers’ expert in the field. Articles in both categories first go through a preliminary review to check whether they meet the structural standards. These structural standards are that each article should present a title’s page with authors name, qualification, and institutional affiliation. The article should have an abstract, an introduction, methodology, result, discussion, and conclusion and reference sections.

The Original Articles: These articles are first sent to two peer reviewers. If both make the same recommendations, that will stand as the final decision. If both reviewers, however, do not agree, the article is sent to a third reviewer. The recommendation on an article which is agreed by two peer reviewers stands as the final decision on the submitted article.

Case Reports: These articles are sent to one peer reviewer. The recommendation from the reviewer added to the comment from the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief serves as the final decision on the article.

EJRH’s reviewers are highly expected to be objective in their comments on articles. They also shall not have any conflict of interest. If and when that is the case, they are highly expected to indicate that clearly and withdraw themselves from the reviewing process. EJRH follows a double-blind reviewing system, i.e., reviewers do not know the authors and the authors do not know the reviewers either. Hence, reviewers are highly advised to not indicate their names on reviewers’ sheets. Reviewers are also expected to keep the confidentiality of articles under review before until publication.