Editorial and Peer Review Process
International Journal of Digital Health · Last updated 1 September 2026
1Overview
IJDH is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, constructive, and transparent editorial process.
2Step 1 — Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscript through the journal's online submission system.
3Step 2 — Administrative Screening
The Editorial Office checks the submission for completeness, formatting, required declarations, and basic compliance with journal requirements.
4Step 3 — Editorial Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates the manuscript for:
- Relevance to IJDH's scope
- Academic quality
- Originality
- Contribution to knowledge
- Methodological appropriateness
- Overall suitability for peer review
4.1Desk decisions
Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope or quality requirements may be declined without external review.
5Step 4 — Peer Review
Suitable manuscripts are sent to independent experts for double-blind peer review.
Reviewers evaluate aspects such as originality, methodological rigor, validity, clarity, significance, literature coverage, and contribution to the field.
6Step 5 — Editorial Decision
Following peer review, the editor may recommend:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
6.1Basis of decisions
Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's scholarly merit and reviewer assessments. Reviewers provide recommendations, while the final publication decision remains with the responsible editor.
7Step 6 — Revision
Authors receiving a revision decision should submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how reviewer and editor comments have been addressed.
8Step 7 — Final Decision
The revised manuscript may be accepted, returned for additional revision, sent for further peer review, or rejected.
9Step 8 — Production
Accepted manuscripts undergo production processes that may include copyediting, typesetting, metadata preparation, author proofing, and final publication.