Peer Review Principles

Peer review is central to the evaluation and validation of scholarly work published by Impact Health Publishing Group. The publisher is committed to peer-review processes that are fair, rigorous, timely, and appropriate to the discipline, supporting the publication of reliable and clinically meaningful research.

The peer-review principles applied across all journals are aligned with internationally recognised best practice and ethical guidance, including standards promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and related scholarly publishing organisations. These principles establish minimum expectations that apply consistently across the publisher’s portfolio while allowing journals to adopt review models suited to their academic communities.

Scope and purpose of peer review

Peer review serves to assess the scientific validity, methodological robustness, originality, and relevance of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to provide constructive, evidence-based assessments that support editorial decision-making and assist authors in improving the quality and clarity of their work. Peer review is not intended to serve as an endorsement of findings but as an independent evaluation of whether the research meets the standards required for publication within a scholarly journal.

Editorial responsibility and oversight

Editors-in-chief and delegated handling editors are responsible for the conduct and oversight of peer review within their respective journals. Editorial responsibility includes the selection of appropriate reviewers, evaluation of reviewer reports, and formulation of editorial decisions based on the merits of the submission and the advice received.

Editors are expected to apply peer-review principles consistently and to exercise academic judgement independently, free from inappropriate influence or bias. The publisher provides oversight to ensure that peer-review processes are applied in accordance with documented standards but does not intervene in individual editorial decisions.

Reviewer selection and conduct

Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject-matter expertise, methodological competence, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest. Editors seek to ensure diversity of perspective and to avoid over-reliance on a limited pool of reviewers.

Reviewers are expected to conduct reviews in a confidential, objective, and professional manner. Reviews should be based on the content of the manuscript rather than on the identity, affiliation, or status of the authors. Personal criticism or inappropriate language is not acceptable. Reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest that could reasonably be perceived to influence their assessment and to decline review where such conflicts cannot be managed appropriately.

Peer-review models and transparency

Journals published by Impact Health Publishing Group may employ different peer-review models, including single-blind, double-blind, or other recognised approaches, depending on disciplinary norms and editorial policy. The chosen peer-review model for each journal is described transparently on the journal website.

Regardless of the model used, the principles of independence, confidentiality, and fairness apply uniformly. Editorial decisions are based on the substance of reviewer feedback and editorial assessment rather than on numerical scoring or mechanical criteria.

Timeliness and quality assurance

Editors and reviewers are expected to conduct peer review in a timely manner, recognising the importance of efficient publication processes for authors and readers. While speed is valued, it does not take precedence over thorough and thoughtful review. The publisher monitors peer-review workflows at a high level to identify systemic delays or quality concerns and to support continuous improvement of editorial processes across journals.

Appeals and disputes related to peer review

Authors who believe that a peer-review process or editorial decision has been affected by procedural error, bias, or misunderstanding may submit an appeal in accordance with journal and publisher procedures. Appeals are assessed by editors or, where appropriate, through independent review mechanisms to ensure fairness and proportionality. Disagreement with a scholarly judgement alone does not constitute grounds for appeal.

Integrity of the peer-review process

Manipulation of the peer-review process, including the use of fabricated reviewer identities, inappropriate influence on reviewers, or interference with editorial decision-making, is considered a serious breach of publishing ethics. Suspected irregularities in peer review are investigated in accordance with established ethical guidance, and appropriate corrective action is taken to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Ongoing review of peer-review practices

Impact Health Publishing Group recognises that peer-review practices evolve in response to changes in research culture, technology, and ethical expectations. Peer-review principles and procedures are reviewed periodically to ensure continued alignment with recognised standards and emerging best practice. Editors are encouraged to engage with developments in peer-review methodology and to adopt improvements that enhance fairness, transparency, and scholarly rigour across the publishing programme.