Peer Review Process

The peer review process at Heighpubs Otolaryngology and Rhinology (HOR) ensures that published work meets the highest standards of quality, integrity, and relevance. HOR adopts a double-blind peer review system, where both author and reviewer identities are kept confidential. This process is built on COPE Core Practices, ICMJE recommendations, and WAME peer review principles.

Peer Review Workflow

  1. Submission: Authors submit manuscripts via the online submission system (OJS).
  2. Initial Editorial Screening: Editors check scope, formatting, and plagiarism.
  3. Reviewer Selection: Editors assign 2–3 expert reviewers with relevant expertise.
  4. Review Invitation: Reviewers are contacted; conflicts of interest must be declared.
  5. Review Process: Reviewers evaluate originality, methodology, ethics, and contribution.
  6. Reviewer Reports: Detailed feedback is provided via structured forms.
  7. Editorial Decision: Based on reports, editors recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection.
  8. Revision Cycle: Authors submit revised manuscripts addressing reviewer comments.
  9. Final Decision: Editors confirm revisions and finalize acceptance.
  10. Production: Accepted articles move to copyediting and publication.

Review Criteria

  • Relevance to journal scope
  • Originality and novelty
  • Methodological rigor and reproducibility
  • Ethical approval and informed consent
  • Quality of writing, figures, and references

Timelines

Stage Typical Duration
Initial Screening 5–7 days
Reviewer Assignment 1 week
Review Period 2–3 weeks
Revision by Authors 2–4 weeks
Final Decision 1 week

Confidentiality in Review

  • Reviewers must not share or use unpublished material.
  • Author and reviewer identities remain confidential under double-blind review.
  • Editors ensure confidentiality is preserved throughout the process.

Reviewer Ethics

  • Provide objective, evidence-based reviews.
  • Respect deadlines and confidentiality.
  • Disclose conflicts of interest promptly.
  • Avoid personal, derogatory, or biased comments.

Editorial Oversight

Editors ensure that peer review is transparent, fair, and constructive. Cases of reviewer misconduct are addressed using COPE flowcharts.

Appeals and Disputes

Authors may appeal decisions by providing justification. Appeals are reviewed by independent editors not involved in the original decision.

Special Peer Review Cases

  • Fast-track Review: Available for urgent clinical or policy-related submissions.
  • Editorial Review: Used for editorials and commentary pieces.
  • Open Peer Review: May be considered for special issues upon consent.

Example: If two reviewers provide conflicting recommendations (accept vs. reject), a third reviewer may be invited to ensure balance.

FAQs

What type of peer review does HOR use?

Double-blind peer review.

How many reviewers are assigned per manuscript?

Typically two, with a third in case of conflicting reviews.

What if a reviewer misses deadlines?

The editor reassigns the manuscript to ensure timely processing.

Can authors suggest reviewers?

Yes, but editors independently decide final reviewer assignments.

Contact Information