Peer Review Policy

Introduction

At Ficco Public Health Journal, we uphold a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality and reliable research. The journal follows a double-blind peer review system, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to maintain objectivity and fairness.

Peer Review Process

  1. Initial Screening:

    • The editorial team conducts a preliminary check to assess the manuscript’s relevance, originality, adherence to submission guidelines, and ethical considerations.
    • Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be desk-rejected.

  2.  Reviewer Assignment:

    • Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
    • Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications and research background.

  3. Review Evaluation:

    • Reviewers assess the manuscript based on criteria such as scientific rigor, methodology, clarity, significance, and contribution to the field.
    • The review process typically takes 4–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and response time.

  4. Decision Making:

    • Based on the reviewers' feedback, the editor makes one of the following decisions:
      - Accept without revisions
      - Accept with minor revisions
      - Revise and resubmit (major revisions required)
      - Reject
    • Authors are required to submit revised versions addressing reviewer comments within the given timeframe.

  5. Final Decision & Publication:

    • The revised manuscript is re-evaluated, and upon final approval, it proceeds to copyediting, formatting, and publication.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Maintain confidentiality and objectivity throughout the review process.
  • Provide constructive feedback to enhance the manuscript’s quality.
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest.

Ethical Considerations

  • The journal adheres to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines to prevent plagiarism, data fabrication, and other unethical practices.
  • Reviewers and authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest.