HCRJ expects the peer reviewers to follow the following guidelines which state that:

• Authors who have benefited from peer reviews should consider becoming reviewers as part of their professional duty.
• Reviewers should ensure their expertise aligns with the manuscript's scope. Accurate and verifiable personal and professional information should be provided to journals.
• Reviewers must not impersonate another individual during the review process.
• Reviewers must declare all potential conflicts of interest, whether personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious.
• They should not review manuscripts if employed at the same institution as the authors, or if they have been recent mentors, mentees, close collaborators, or joint grant holders with any authors.
• Reviewers should respond to invitations promptly, even if they cannot undertake the review.
• Reviewers should agree to review only if they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed timeframe.
• If unable to review, suggesting alternative reviewers based on expertise without personal bias is encouraged.
• The reviewer must read the manuscript, supplementary data, and ancillary materials thoroughly.
• Reviewers should seek clarifications from the journal for any unclear aspects or missing items.
• Reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of the review process and refrain from using the information for personal gain or to disadvantage others.
• Reviewers should not involve others in the review process without the journal's permission.
• Reviewers should remain unbiased and notify the journal if any conflict of interest arises.
• Reviewers should notify the journal if lacking the necessary expertise to review certain aspects of the manuscript.
• Reviewers should report any suspected research or publication ethics violations to the journal without conducting personal investigations.
• Reviewers may need to give permission for their reviews to be transferred if the manuscript is resubmitted to another journal.



Preparing a Report

While preparing the report, HCRJ expects peer reviewers to keep the following points in mind:

• Follow the journal’s instructions for writing and posting reviews.
• Provide constructive and evidence-supported feedback to help authors improve their manuscripts.
• Provide a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses.
• Ensure comments and recommendations to the editor are consistent with those provided to the authors.
• Respect the authors’ style while suggesting improvements for clarity.
• Be sensitive to language issues for authors writing in a non-native language.
• Comment on missing analyses and suggest additional analyses if necessary.
• Avoid extending the work beyond its current scope.
• Prepare the review report independently unless permission to involve another person is granted.
• Avoid unfair negative comments and unjustified criticisms of competitors’ work.

Peer Review Process

HCRJ is committed to maintaining a transparent, rigorous, and ethical peer review process in line with the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) guidelines. Our peer review process ensures that all manuscripts are evaluated fairly and thoroughly, contributing to the integrity and quality of the research we publish. The peer review process of HCRJ ensures that all published articles are of high quality, ethically sound, and contribute valuable knowledge to the field of healthcare research.

Step 1. Initial Submission and Screening

1. Manuscript Submission:

• Authors submit manuscripts through our Online Submission Form, ensuring all required elements are included and formatted according to our Submission Checklist.

2. Editorial Office Check:

• The editorial office conducts an initial screening to confirm that the manuscript meets basic submission criteria and is within the journal’s scope.
• Manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using industry-standard software.

Step 2. Assignment of Editor

1. Editor Assignment:

• An appropriate editor, who is a subject matter expert, is assigned to the manuscript to oversee the peer review process.

Step 3. Selection of Reviewers

1. Reviewer Selection:

• The editor selects suitable peer reviewers who are experts in the manuscript’s subject area.
• Two to three reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript.

2. Reviewer Invitation:

• Reviewers are sent an invitation along with the manuscript’s abstract and are asked to confirm their availability and willingness to review.

Step 4. Review Process

1. Confidentiality and Ethics:

• By acceptance, reviewers agree to maintaining the confidentiality of the manuscript and not use information gained during the review process for personal advantage.
• Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

2. Evaluation Criteria:

• Reviewers assess the manuscript for originality, scientific rigor, clarity, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
• Reviewers provide detailed, constructive feedback and make a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject).

c. Timeliness:

• Reviewers are expected to submit their reviews within the agreed timeframe of 2-4 weeks.

Step 5. Editorial Decision

1. Decision Making:

• The editor considers all reviewer comments and makes an initial decision on the manuscript.
• Possible decisions include: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

2. Notification to Authors:

• The corresponding author is notified of the decision and provided with the reviewers’ comments and any necessary revision instructions.

Step 6. Revision and Resubmission

1. Author Revisions:

• Authors revise the manuscript based on reviewer feedback and submit a revised version along with a detailed response to reviewers’ comments.

2. Secondary Review:

• The revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation, especially if major revisions were required.

Step 7. Final Decision

1. Final Approval:

• The editor makes the final decision based on the revised manuscript and any additional reviewer feedback.
• If accepted, the manuscript proceeds to the production stage.

2. Proofreading and Publication:

• Authors review and approve the galley proofs before the manuscript is published online.

Step 8. Post-Publication

1. Post-Publication Feedback:

• Authors are expected to respond appropriately to post-publication inquiries and cooperate with any requests for additional information or data.

2. Retention of Records:

• The journal retains copies of the original submission, reviews, revisions, and correspondence for at least three years, in accordance with local regulations.