Peer Review Process

AHRIE (Applied Health Research, Innovation & Education) operates a peer-review process designed to ensure the quality, validity, originality, relevance, and integrity of the work it publishes.

Review model

The journal uses a double-anonymous peer-review system. During this process, the authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors.

Authors are responsible for removing from the manuscript and supplementary files any information that could reveal their names, institutions, research teams, acknowledgments, or specific projects. The editorial team may request a new anonymized version before evaluation begins.

Content that, because of its nature, does not undergo external peer review will be clearly identified as such.

Initial editorial assessment

All manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine:

• alignment with AHRIE’s aims and scope;

• compliance with the author guidelines and formal requirements;

• originality, clarity, and basic scientific quality;

• compliance with applicable ethical requirements;

• appropriate anonymization of the document;

• the presence of potential textual overlap, duplicate publication, or other integrity concerns.

A manuscript may be rejected at this stage without external review when it falls outside the journal’s scope, contains substantial methodological or ethical deficiencies, significantly fails to comply with editorial requirements, or does not meet the minimum standard required to proceed.

Reviewer selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment will normally be sent to at least two external, independent reviewers with expertise related to the subject or methodology of the work.

The editorial team is responsible for selecting reviewers. Suggestions made by authors may be considered but are not binding. AHRIE does not guarantee that suggested individuals will be invited or selected.

When the reviewers’ recommendations differ substantially, the editor may request a third review, consult an additional specialist, or make a reasoned editorial assessment.

Evaluation criteria

Depending on the manuscript type, reviewers will assess:

• originality and scientific, clinical, educational, technological, or social contribution;

• relevance of the problem and clarity of the objectives;

• appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;

• quality, consistency, and transparency of the results;

• alignment between the results, discussion, and conclusions;

• adequate consideration of limitations;

• compliance with ethical requirements;

• use of the appropriate reporting guidelines for the study design;

• currency, relevance, and appropriate use of references;

• clarity, organization, and overall quality of presentation.

Reviewers must provide respectful, specific, well-reasoned, and constructive comments intended to improve the manuscript. Offensive or discriminatory comments, or comments directed at authors’ personal characteristics, will not be accepted.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts, data, images, supplementary files, review reports, and editorial communications are confidential. Reviewers and editors may not share or reproduce them or use unpublished information for their own benefit or that of another party.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or confidential information to publicly available generative artificial intelligence tools. Any authorized use of technological tools must comply with AHRIE’s policy on artificial intelligence, confidentiality, and data protection.

Conflicts of interest

Anyone invited to review a manuscript must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived personal, professional, academic, institutional, intellectual, or financial conflict of interest.

Reviewers must decline the assignment when a conflict could affect, or appear to affect, their independence and impartiality. If a conflict is discovered after accepting the assignment, it must be reported to the editor immediately.

Recommendations and editorial decisions

Reviewers may recommend:

• acceptance;

• minor revisions;

• major revisions;

• rejection.

These recommendations inform the decision but do not determine it automatically. The final decision rests with the AHRIE editorial team, which will consider the reports, the authors’ response, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal, and its own academic assessment.

The editor may request clarification from reviewers, obtain an additional evaluation, or require further rounds of review when necessary.

Author revision

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

• a revised version of the manuscript;

• a detailed, organized response to every reviewer and editor comment;

• clear identification of the changes made;

• a respectful academic justification when they decide not to follow a recommendation.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance. Depending on the nature and extent of the requested changes, the manuscript may be returned to the reviewers or assessed by the editor.

Independence and equitable treatment

Editorial decisions will not be influenced by commercial, institutional, financial, or personal interests. Authors’ nationality, affiliation, academic seniority, or recognition will not determine the outcome of the evaluation.

Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial team, scientific committee, publisher, or individuals associated with AHRIE will be subject to the same standards. They will be handled by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest concerning the work.

Inappropriate conduct during peer review

AHRIE may suspend the evaluation or take appropriate editorial action when it identifies:

• attempts to manipulate reviewer selection or the evaluation process;

• false identities or fraudulent contact information;

• unauthorized appropriation or use of confidential information;

• reviews completed despite undisclosed conflicts of interest;

• impersonation of a reviewer;

• intimidating, discriminatory, or deliberately harmful comments;

• any other conduct that compromises the independence or integrity of the process.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision in accordance with AHRIE’s Complaints and Appeals Policy. An appeal must identify potential factual errors, procedural problems, or specific scientific arguments. Mere disagreement with the decision will not be sufficient to overturn it.

Process updates

AHRIE may update this procedure to incorporate new recommendations, technologies, or editorial needs. The version published on the journal’s website will be the version applicable at any given time.