Peer-review
Manuscript peer review
The Public Health, Economy and Management in Medicine (PHEMM) Journal is an international open-access scientific journal that applies a double-blind peer-review process.
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editorial Board to verify their relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with editorial requirements, and overall scientific quality. Manuscripts that meet these criteria are subsequently sent for evaluation to at least two independent experts in the relevant field.
The peer-review process is confidential. The identities of both authors and reviewers are not disclosed during the evaluation process. Unpublished materials contained in submitted manuscripts may not be used by editors or reviewers without the authors’ explicit consent.
TFor evaluation purposes, the reviewer receives the manuscript together with the Article evaluation form (Annex 1). The manuscript is provided in anonymized form, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. Confidentiality is maintained throughout the entire review process.
The following aspects are considered during the review process:
- relevance of the topic to the journal’s scope;
- originality and scientific contribution;
- methodological rigor;
- significance of the results;
- clarity of presentation and quality of writing;
- compliance with ethical and editorial standards.
Reviewers complete the Article Evaluation Form and submit their recommendations to the Editorial Board within approximately 10–14 days. The author(s) will be informed of the reviewers’ comments and recommendations by the Editorial Board.
Editorial Decisions
Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editorial Board may adopt one of the following decisions:
Acceptance
The manuscript is accepted for publication without modifications or with minor revisions.
Revision
The manuscript requires modifications before publication. Authors will receive the reviewers’ comments and will be invited to submit a revised version together with reasoned responses to the observations received.
Rejection
The manuscript does not meet the scientific, methodological, or editorial standards of the journal and cannot be accepted for publication.
In cases where reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the Editorial Board may request an additional evaluation of the manuscript by one or more independent experts.
Authors’ Response
When revisions are requested, authors must submit:
- A document containing responses to the reviewers’ comments.
The response should include a table with at least two columns: Reviewer’s comments/objections/suggestions and Modifications made by the authors.
- A version of the manuscript with all changes clearly marked using the Track Changes function.
The modifications highlighted in the manuscript must correspond to the comments and responses presented in the table described in Point 1.
- A revised final version of the manuscript.
Where applicable, the revised manuscript should include an updated list of authors and any additional information requested by the Editorial Board.
Authors may accept or provide a justified explanation for not accepting specific reviewer recommendations. All modifications and responses must be clearly documented.
The corresponding author is responsible for maintaining communication with the Editorial Board throughout the editorial process.
Principles of Review
The journal promotes an objective, impartial, and constructive review process. Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, evidence-based, and helpful comments aimed at improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the author(s) is considered unacceptable.
Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest, significant similarities with previously published works, or any other circumstances that may affect the objectivity of the review process.
Withdrawal of a Manuscript
Authors have the right to withdraw their manuscript at any stage of the editorial process prior to publication.
Contact
Questions regarding the peer-review and publication process may be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief:
Natalia Zarbailov
E-mail: redactor.spemm [at] gmail.com
Reviewers
The reviewer database is maintained by the Editorial Board. Specialists interested in participating in the peer-review process are invited to submit a request to:
