Peer Review Policy

Introduction

The peer review process is central to maintaining the integrity, quality, and credibility of scholarly publishing. At Heighpubs Otolaryngology and Rhinology (HOR), peer review ensures that only scientifically sound, ethically compliant, and relevant research is published. Our policy is aligned with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the ICMJE Recommendations, and the WAME Principles.

Peer Review Model

HOR uses a double-blind peer review model:

  • Authors’ identities are concealed from reviewers.
  • Reviewers’ identities are concealed from authors.
  • This minimizes bias based on institutional affiliation, nationality, or reputation.

Stages of Peer Review

  1. Initial Editorial Screening: Manuscripts are checked for scope, formatting, and ethical compliance.
  2. Reviewer Assignment: At least two independent experts are invited.
  3. Review Evaluation: Reviewers assess originality, methodology, clarity, and significance.
  4. Decision: Editor-in-Chief makes final decision (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject).

Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are chosen based on:

  • Expertise in the relevant subject area
  • Absence of conflicts of interest
  • Previous reviewing experience and reliability
  • Commitment to confidentiality

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based feedback
  • Submit reviews within the agreed timeframe (usually 2–3 weeks)
  • Respect confidentiality and not share manuscripts
  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplication, or misconduct
  • Declare conflicts of interest immediately

Editorial Responsibilities

  • Ensure fairness, impartiality, and confidentiality
  • Provide reviewers with clear instructions and guidelines
  • Consider all reviews before making decisions
  • Handle appeals and complaints transparently

Timelines

HOR strives for efficiency while maintaining rigor:

  • Initial editorial check: 5–7 days
  • Reviewer assignment: within 10 days
  • Review process: 2–3 weeks per reviewer
  • First decision: within 4–6 weeks

Ethical Considerations

  • Confidentiality of all submissions is maintained.
  • Reviews are objective and free from personal bias.
  • Authors are given opportunities to respond to reviewers’ comments.

Example: If a reviewer identifies possible image manipulation, the editor investigates using tools like image forensics before making a decision.

Handling Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers, editors, and authors must declare financial, institutional, or personal conflicts. Manuscripts with potential conflicts are reassigned to ensure fairness.

Post-Publication Review

HOR encourages post-publication dialogue. Readers may submit comments or letters to the editor regarding published work, which undergo editorial consideration and peer review if necessary.

Sanctions for Misconduct

If reviewers or authors violate ethical standards, sanctions may include manuscript rejection, institutional notification, or banning from future review activities.

FAQs

Can authors suggest reviewers?

Yes, authors may suggest reviewers, but final selection is at the editors’ discretion.

Are negative results accepted?

Yes, as long as they are scientifically valid and methodologically sound.

Do reviewers receive credit?

Yes, HOR issues reviewer acknowledgments annually and may integrate with Publons or ORCID for recognition.

What happens if reviewers disagree?

Additional reviewers may be invited, and the final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Contact Information