The Global Journal of Multidisciplinary Health Research (GJMHR) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity and publication ethics. Our peer review process adheres to the principles outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and aims to ensure the quality, validity, and relevance of published research.

All articles undergo peer review based on the following criteria:

Initial Screening: Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess their suitability for the journal and compliance with submission guidelines. Manuscripts that pass this stage proceed to peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review: GJMHR employs a double-blind peer review process, where the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review. This approach minimizes potential bias and ensures objective evaluation based solely on the manuscript's scientific merit.

Reviewer Selection: The Editor-in-Chief or designated Associate Editors select at least two qualified reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are chosen based on their scientific background, publication history, and previous review quality.

Review Criteria: Reviewers assess manuscripts based on originality, scientific validity, methodological rigour, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and significance to the field. They provide detailed comments and recommendations for improvement.

Review Timeline: GJMHR strives to complete the initial review process within 4-6 weeks of submission. Authors are promptly notified of the editorial decision and provided with reviewer comments.

Editorial Decision: Based on reviewer recommendations and their assessment, editors make one of the following decisions: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. In cases of conflicting reviews, additional expert opinions may be sought.

Revision and Re-review: Authors are allowed to revise their manuscript according to reviewer comments. Revised submissions undergo re-evaluation, which may involve the original reviewers or new experts as deemed necessary.

Ethical Considerations: GJMHR follows COPE guidelines for addressing potential ethical issues, including plagiarism, data fabrication, and conflicts of interest. Any concerns raised during the review process are thoroughly investigated and addressed.

Confidentiality: All submitted manuscripts and review communications are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are prohibited from sharing or using unpublished information without explicit permission.

Continuous Improvement: GJMHR regularly evaluates and refines its peer review process to ensure fairness, efficiency, and alignment with best practices in scientific publishing.