Peer Review

Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Ayurveda and Holistic Medicine (JAHM) employs a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the peer-review process to promote impartial and objective evaluation.

Each manuscript considered suitable for external review is evaluated by a minimum of two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, academic credentials, publication record, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to evaluate their relevance to the journal's scope, scientific and scholarly merit, originality, methodological adequacy, ethical compliance, adherence to applicable reporting guidelines, and compliance with journal policies. Manuscripts are also screened using plagiarism/similarity-detection software.

Manuscripts may be rejected without external peer review if they fall outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient scientific or scholarly merit, contain fundamental methodological deficiencies, fail to meet applicable ethical requirements, or do not comply with essential journal policies.

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are considered for external peer review.

Peer Review Process

The peer-review process is managed through the journal's online manuscript management system.

Reviewers are invited based on their relevant expertise and are provided with the manuscript title and abstract to assess their suitability to review the submission. Reviewers are generally given 7 days to accept or decline the invitation.

Upon accepting the invitation, reviewers are provided access to the anonymized manuscript and are requested to submit their evaluation using the official JAHM Review Template.

Reviewers are generally expected to complete their review within 7–15 days. Additional time, up to 30 days, may be granted when justified and requested.

The typical timeline from manuscript submission to the initial editorial decision following peer review is approximately 2–8 weeks, although this may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the time required for revisions.

Reviewer Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must treat manuscripts, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, and all information obtained during peer review as strictly confidential.

Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, discuss, or use unpublished information, data, ideas, or findings contained in a manuscript for personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality. Where an appropriate and unbiased review cannot be provided, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Executive Editor, other editors, Editorial Board members, or individuals with whom an editor has a relevant conflict of interest are handled independently by an appropriately qualified editor who has no conflict with the submission.

The submitting or conflicted editor will have no involvement in reviewer selection, peer review, deliberation, or the editorial decision concerning the manuscript.

Editorial Decision

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and form an important part of the editorial assessment.

The final decision on a manuscript—acceptance, revision, or rejection—is made by the Editor-in-Chief, Executive Editor, or an appropriately delegated Senior/Associate Editor, based on the reviewers' reports, scientific and scholarly merit, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal's scope, and adherence to journal policies.

Where reviewer recommendations substantially differ, the handling editor may seek an additional independent review before reaching a decision.

Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by commercial considerations, advertising, sponsorship, or other inappropriate external interests.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, respectful, and evidence-based feedback.

  • Evaluate the manuscript's originality, scientific or scholarly merit, methodology, interpretation of results, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope.

  • Submit their comments in written form using the JAHM Review Template.

  • Clearly identify major and minor concerns and provide specific, actionable recommendations for improvement.

  • Avoid personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, or inappropriate language.

  • Identify relevant ethical concerns, suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data irregularities, citation manipulation, or other potential research-integrity issues and confidentially report them to the editor.

  • Avoid recommending citations primarily to increase citations to their own work, associates, institution, or a particular journal.

  • Maintain confidentiality throughout and after completion of the review process.

  • Re-evaluate revised manuscripts when requested. Where practicable, revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewer(s) to assess whether substantive concerns have been adequately addressed.

Ethics and Integrity in Peer Review

JAHM follows the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) concerning ethical peer review and the management of potential misconduct.

  • Manuscripts are screened using plagiarism/similarity-detection software as part of the journal's editorial integrity procedures.

  • Reviewer identities and relevant credentials are verified as appropriate.

  • Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

  • The journal monitors for suspicious or inappropriate peer-review activities, including fabricated reviewer identities, compromised peer review, undisclosed conflicts of interest, coordinated review manipulation, and inappropriate citation requests.

  • Suspected manipulation or misconduct in the peer-review process will be investigated and managed in accordance with the journal's publication-ethics procedures.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned and evidence-based appeal to the editorial office within the period specified by the journal.

Appeals should clearly identify the decision being challenged and provide a detailed justification, particularly where the authors believe that a significant factual, methodological, ethical, or procedural error has occurred.

Appeals are considered by an editor who was not materially involved in the original decision, wherever practicable. Additional expert review may be sought when necessary.

Complaints concerning editorial procedures, peer review, publication ethics, or potential conflicts of interest will be investigated fairly and confidentially in accordance with the journal's established policies and applicable COPE guidance (https://publicationethics.org/guidance)

The outcome of an appeal or complaint will be communicated to the concerned parties with an appropriate explanation. The decision reached following the journal's appeal procedure will normally be considered final.