Peer Review Process

The decision to publish a paper is based on an editorial assessment and peer review. Initially, all papers are assessed by an editorial committee consisting of members of the editorial team. The prime purpose is to decide whether to send a paper for peer review and to give a rapid decision on those that are not. The rejection is based on the novelty or the relevancy with the scope of this journal.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Journal of Multidisciplinary Health and Technology (JMHT) are eager to provide a rapid publication process through an initial assessment conducted by an editorial committee consisting of the editorial team members. The primary purpose is to decide whether to send the paper for peer-review or to reject it. The main point is scope, compliance with the guideline, and language. Sometimes a paper will be returned to the author with a request for revisions with the purpose to help editors in deciding whether or not to send it out for review. Authors may expect the decision of the Initial Editorial Assessment from this stage of the review process within 1-2 weeks of submission.

Review Process

After passing the Initial Editorial Assessment, the article will be sent to peer-reviewers. The peer-review process involved at least two reviewers for each manuscript selected based on their expertise. All reviewing process is done by the double-blind review, which means the authors and peer-reviewers do not know each other's identity. The reviewers should complete the review within three weeks in each reviewing round after the review request was sent.

Decision-Making Process

The decision to accept for publication is based on the peer reviewer's recommendations, based on which two acceptance recommendations are required. If there is a difference in the two reviewers' recommendations, the editor has the right to seek the third reviewer's consideration. The final decision to publish is made by the editor-in-chief, editorial committee (national or international advisory board) by considering the advice from reviewers.