Peer-reviewing: The Journal of Human Environment and Health Promotion (JHEHP) is a peer-reviewed publication that adheres to a strict double-blind reviewing policy to ensure the neutral evaluation of submitted manuscripts. All manuscripts are acknowledged upon submission, provided they meet established criteria. The editor-in-chief initially assesses each manuscript for quality, accuracy, novelty, relevance, and significance. Manuscripts that meet the minimum standards undergo a double-blind peer-reviewing process, while those inappropriate for publication or out of scope for the journal are either rejected or returned to the corresponding author without entering the peer-reviewing process. Subsequently, the manuscript is directed to the section editor. The manuscript is then sent to three or more reviewers who are faculty members in academic organizations or universities worldwide, possessing relevant experience in peer-reviewing, impeccable academic skills, and effective international collaboration. Fluency in English is also a crucial criterion for reviewers. Authors retain the right to communicate with the editor if they do not wish their manuscript to be reviewed by a particular reviewer due to conflicts of interest. The author can also suggest the name of possible competent reviewers, although the editor ultimately decides whether to accept the suggestion. The entire peer-reviewing process is contingent on receiving feedback from referees and revising the manuscript based on the author's comments. The editor-in-chief makes the final decision on each manuscript, which is promptly communicated to the corresponding author. The editor may reject the manuscript at any stage before publication, including after acceptance if concerns arise regarding the integrity of the work. During the peer-reviewing process, research protocols and statistical analysis plans are scrutinized. Manuscripts are reviewed in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE guidelines and are treated as confidential documents. Since peer-reviewing is confidential, reviews or information about the review are not shared with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved, both during and after publication. After submission, the entire process from peer-reviewing to publication in this journal typically takes 74 days. Authors should not submit their manuscripts to other journals during the period of peer-reviewing.




      Revision: Manuscripts may be subject to revision by the corresponding author for both scientific content and language corrections. Upon completion, the revised manuscript, accompanied by a letter detailing point-by-point responses to the reviewers, must be resubmitted to the editor along with a copy of the original version. It should be noted that any suggestions made by the editor regarding resubmission do not guarantee acceptance of the revised version. Failure to resubmit a modified manuscript within two months of its return will result in its withdrawal, and any subsequent resubmission will be treated as a new manuscript, with the date of receipt adjusted accordingly. In the event that authors resubmit a previously rejected manuscript, they must provide the original manuscript and a letter outlining the specific modifications made to the manuscript in question. 

• Responding to hostile or unprofessional reviews :

1. Maintain professionalism: Stay composed and respond in a respectful and professional manner, regardless of the tone of the review.
2. Express disappointment constructively: Acknowledge your disappointment with the tone or lack of constructive criticism, while maintaining a professional tone throughout your response.
3. Provide evidence-based explanations: Address the specific points raised in the review by providing well-reasoned responses supported by evidence from your research. Clarify any factual inaccuracies or misunderstandings.
4. Refer to the journal policy: Mention that the journal policy prohibits editing the content of reviews, ensuring transparency and preserving the original feedback provided by the reviewers.
5. Consider contacting the editor: If you believe the review is unjust or biased, respectfully express your concerns to the editor handling your manuscript. Provide an objective explanation of the issues you have identified.
6. Seek journal support if needed: Reach out to the journal's editorial team if you require further assistance or have questions regarding the review process. They are there to provide guidance and support.

        Galley proofs: The corresponding author will receive a computer printout of the manuscript for the sole purpose of reviewing it for typographical errors and essential small changes prior to publication, in order to prevent avoid any inadvertent errors. However, significant alternations to the text cannot be accepted at this stage. The authors must return the proof to the editor must be returned to the editor within 2 days.
         English language editing: Expert editors will perform English language editing of manuscripts. However, it is imperative that the manuscript is of high-quality English at the time of submission to avoid rejection, otherwise during the initial stage. The cost of English language editing will be free, as we have taken this initiative to assist authors who are unable to step to bear the cost of such services.

•          Authors are afforded the opportunity to monitor the progress of their manuscript at any time by logging into their account on the submission system.

Please find the peer-reviewing flowchart below: