Healthcare Service Journal (HCSJ), published by HCS Publications, is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity through a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process. This policy applies to all submitted manuscripts and is binding upon authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher.
1. Type of Peer Review
HCSJ follows a double-blind peer review process. Manuscripts undergo evaluation by at least two (2) independent expert reviewers per submission. Additional reviews may be requested at the Editor’s discretion in cases of conflicting reports.
- The identity of both authors and reviewers remains confidential throughout the process.
- Reviewers are selected for their expertise in the specific subject area of the manuscript.
- Reviewers are excluded if they have any conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions.
2. Editorial Screening and Initial Assessment
Before external review, every manuscript undergoes a preliminary editorial check-
- Plagiarism screening: All manuscripts are checked using plagiarism-detection software (Turnitin). Manuscripts with a similarity index above 10–15% (excluding references and common phrases) may be rejected or returned for revision.
- Scope and formatting check: Manuscripts that do not align with journal scope or violate author guidelines are desk-rejected.
- Ethics verification: Studies involving human/animal subjects must include appropriate ethics approval statements.
The Editor holds sole authority for desk rejections and reserves the right to reject any manuscript whose findings are deemed fraudulent, fabricated, or misleading.
- Review Timeline and Processing Schedule- Healthcare Service Journal aims to provide authors with timely feedback on their submissions. However, the peer review process is rigorous and thorough to maintain academic standards.
Expected Timeline:
Editorial screening: 3–7 days
Reviewer assignment and review period: 3–4 weeks
Editorial assessment of reviewer reports: 3–5 days
Decision notification to authors: Up to 4–6 weeks from initial submission
Total expected time from submission to initial decision: approximately 1 month or more.
In cases of Major revision requests requiring re-review like Conflicting reviewer opinions requiring additional expert evaluation or High volume of submissions during peak periods. The review process may extend beyond 1–2 months or longer. Authors will be kept informed of any delays via email.
Authors should not contact the Editor to inquire about the status of their manuscript before 6 weeks have elapsed from submission, except where extraordinary circumstances warrant.
HCSJ does not expedite review timelines upon author request, as doing so would compromise the quality and rigor of peer evaluation.
3. Reviewer Responsibilities (Reviewer Code of Ethics)
Reviewers are required to:
- Maintain confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are privileged communications and must not be shared, discussed, or disclosed to third parties.
- Declare conflicts of interest: Reviewers must disclose any competing interests (financial, professional, personal) and decline review where conflicts exist.
- Provide objective, constructive assessments: Reviews must be based solely on scientific merit, methodology, originality, and relevance — free from personal bias or prejudice.
- Avoid using unpublished material: Information obtained during review must not be used for the reviewer’s own research or advantage without author consent.
- Report ethical concerns: Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or other misconduct must be reported to the Editor immediately.
- Meet deadlines: Reviewers who cannot complete a review within the stipulated timeframe of “less than three weeks” must notify the Editor promptly.
4. Author Responsibilities and Warranties
Authors are required to:
- Submit original, unpublished work; simultaneous submission to multiple journals is prohibited.
- Disclose all funding sources, conflicts of interest, and prior publications.
- Ensure accurate authorship, with substantive contribution from each listed author.
- Provide raw data upon editorial request to verify findings.
- Respond to reviewer comments within the prescribed timeline with point-by-point revisions.
- Report any errors discovered post-publication promptly for correction or retraction.
Failure to comply may result in rejection, withdrawal of the manuscript, and — in cases of misconduct — retraction and notification of the author’s institution or employer.
5. Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:
| Criterion | Weight |
| Originality and novelty | High |
| Scientific soundness and methodology | High |
| Relevance to journal scope | Medium |
| Clarity, structure, and language | Medium |
| Ethical compliance | Mandatory |
| Soundness of conclusions (supported by data) | High |
| Adequacy of literature review and references | Medium |
6. Decision Categories
Reviewers recommend one of the following:
| Decision | Meaning |
| Accept | Accepted without changes |
| Minor Revision | Accepted after minor editorial corrections |
| Major Revision | Requires substantial revision; re-review normally required |
| Reject | Does not meet journal standards |
Final publication decisions rest solely with the Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewer recommendations. Editor and Editorial Board decisions are final and not subject to appeal, except where procedural or ethical errors are demonstrated.
7. Conflict of Interest Policy
- Authors must declare all financial and non-financial interests that could influence their work.
- Reviewers must decline review where conflicts exist.
- Editors must recuse themselves from manuscripts involving conflicts (e.g., own institution, collaborators, funding sources).
8. Research Ethics and Misconduct Policy
The following constitute misconduct and are strictly prohibited:
- Plagiarism, data fabrication, or data falsification
- Duplicate or redundant (salami-slicing) publication
- Gift, guest, or ghost authorship
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest
- Manipulation of citations (citation stuffing)
- Undisclosed concurrent submission
Consequences: Manuscript rejection, retraction of published articles, a ban on future submissions, and formal notification of the author’s institution, employer, or funding body. The journal may also publish a Notice of Retraction or Expression of Concern.
9. Appeals and Complaints Policy
Authors dissatisfied with an editorial decision may submit a formal appeal:
- Appeals must be submitted in writing within 14 days of the decision.
- Appeals must address specific reviewer/editorial concerns with evidence.
- The Editor-in-Chief will refer meritorious appeals to an independent member of the Editorial Board.
- Decisions on appeals are final.
Complaints regarding reviewer or editor conduct may be directed to the publisher (HCS Publications) via the journal’s contact channels.
10. Confidentiality and Data Protection
- All manuscripts are treated as confidential during review.
- Reviewer identities are protected; reviewer comments are anonymized before release to authors.
- Author identities are protected from reviewers (double-blind).
- The journal complies with applicable data-protection and privacy regulations.
11. Correction, Retraction, and Editorial Expression of Concern
- Erratum/Corrigendum: Published for minor errors not affecting conclusions.
- Expression of Concern: Issued when misconduct is suspected but not yet proven.
- Retraction: Issued for proven misconduct, unreliable findings, or major ethical violations. Retracted articles remain accessible but are clearly marked as retracted.