HEALING
Official Journal of IICAT Kolkata
Open Access Journal
Open Access Journal
Peer review is a structured and independent evaluation process in which subject experts critically assess scholarly manuscripts before publication. It acts as an essential quality assurance mechanism, ensuring that published research is scientifically valid, methodologically sound, original, and ethically responsible. In the Healing Journal, peer review goes beyond validation by also improving the clarity, structure, and overall impact of manuscripts through constructive expert feedback. Reviewers, therefore, play a vital role in maintaining academic integrity and advancing knowledge in the field of medical imaging and allied health sciences.
The Healing Journal follows a double-blind peer review model designed to ensure fairness and reduce bias. In this system, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process, allowing manuscripts to be judged purely on scientific merit rather than reputation, institutional affiliation, or geographic background. Typically, the review process takes around 2–3 weeks, although complex submissions may require additional time. This approach aligns with international publishing standards and supports transparent and unbiased scholarly assessment.
The peer review process in the Healing Journal follows a clear and structured pathway. Initially, manuscripts undergo editorial screening within 2–3 days to assess scope relevance, quality standards, and formatting compliance, after which approximately 30% may be returned or rejected. Suitable manuscripts then move to reviewer assignment within 5–7 days, where experts are selected based on subject expertise and absence of conflicts of interest, usually involving 3–4 reviewers per paper. The peer evaluation phase lasts 14–21 days, during which detailed assessments are prepared. This is followed by a 3–5 day decision formulation stage, where the editor consolidates feedback and determines the outcome. Finally, authors receive a formal decision along with anonymised reviewer comments. The entire process typically takes 4–6 weeks from submission to initial decision.
Pre-Review Considerations: Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should carefully evaluate whether the manuscript aligns with their expertise. They must also disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including collaborations, institutional connections, or competitive relationships with the authors. In addition, reviewers should ensure they can complete the review within the specified timeframe, usually 14 days, dedicating sufficient time, typically 4 to 6 hours, for a thorough and meaningful evaluation.
Review Execution Protocol: Once a review is accepted, reviewers should begin with an overall reading of the manuscript to understand its structure and key findings. This is followed by a detailed, section-by-section analysis based on journal standards. Throughout the process, confidentiality must be strictly maintained. Feedback should always be constructive, specific, and aimed at improving the quality of the research. While scientific content remains the primary focus, clarity, readability, and presentation quality should also be evaluated.
Ethical Obligations: Reviewers are responsible for upholding the highest ethical standards in scholarly publishing. Any suspicion of plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical research practices must be reported confidentially to the editor. Ethical approvals, consent statements, and regulatory compliance must also be verified where applicable. Reviews should remain objective and free from personal bias, and reviewers must avoid disclosing their identity or the content of the manuscript. Any undisclosed conflict of interest discovered later must be immediately reported to the editorial office.
Scientific Quality Assessment: Reviewers must assess the scientific value of each manuscript by examining its originality, methodological strength, statistical accuracy, and logical consistency of conclusions. The study should present meaningful contributions to medical imaging, with clearly described methods that allow reproducibility. Conclusions must be fully supported by data without overinterpretation.
Structural and Presentation Evaluation
| Section | Key Evaluation Criteria |
|---|---|
| Title | Accuracy, clarity, and relevance |
| Abstract | Clear summary and structured format where required |
| Introduction | Research rationale and clear objectives |
| Methods | Detailed, reproducible methodology |
| Results | Logical presentation with appropriate visuals |
| Discussion | Interpretation, limitations, and implications |
| References | Relevance, accuracy, and proper formatting |
Reviewers should ensure that all visual materials such as tables and figures are clear, relevant, and properly labelled. Statistical methods must be appropriate and accurately reported, including p-values and confidence intervals where necessary. Ethical compliance, including IRB approval and patient consent, must be verified. Consistent terminology and properly defined abbreviations are essential for clarity. Any supplementary materials should support the main manuscript and be properly integrated.
Standardised Rating System
| Rating | Definition | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| 1 – Excellent | Meets all publication standards | Accept without revision |
| 2 – Good | Minor issues only | Accept after minor revisions |
| 3 – Fair | Requires substantial improvement | Major revisions required |
| 4 – Poor | Significant methodological flaws | Reject with resubmission option |
| 5 – Unacceptable | Serious flaws or ethical issues | Reject outright |
Required Report Components: A complete review report should include a summary of the study, highlighting its purpose and key findings. It should clearly outline major concerns that affect scientific validity and minor comments related to presentation or formatting. Confidential remarks may be provided exclusively to the editor for ethical or sensitive issues. Finally, a clear recommendation, such as accept, revise, or reject must be included.
Decision Recommendation Framework: Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes: accept, minor revision, major revision, reject with resubmission possibility, or reject. These recommendations help editors make balanced and informed decisions regarding publication suitability.
For any queries related to the review process, please contact: editor@spjinternational.co
Last Updated: 11/12/2025