This guideline has been prepared to ensure that the peer-review process conducted at the International Health Studies Congress, which will be held in Andijan, Uzbekistan, on June 19-21, 2025, is carried out in accordance with scientific, transparent, and ethical principles. It outlines the rules that reviewers and the editorial team must follow during the evaluation process.

1. Purpose and Scope

• This guideline has been developed to enhance the academic quality of the papers submitted to the congress and to ensure consistency in the evaluation process.

• The peer-review process aims to analyze the scientific contribution, methodological adequacy, and writing quality of the submitted papers.

2. Principles of the Review Process

Double-Blind Peer Review

• The identities of both reviewers and authors remain confidential.

• This principle ensures that the evaluation process is conducted impartially and fairly.

Transparency

• The reviewers’ feedback is shared with the authors, and the revision process is clearly explained.

• Final decisions are made based on review reports and evaluations by the congress editorial team.

Ethics and Impartiality

• Reviewers should avoid personal or institutional conflicts of interest during the evaluation process.

• If a reviewer identifies a conflict of interest, they must notify the congress editorial team immediately.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Scientific Evaluation

Reviewers must analyze the originality, methodological adequacy, and scientific contribution of the papers based on the following criteria:

• Originality and innovation

• Accuracy and applicability of the methodology

• Clarity and presentation of findings

• Coherence of the discussion with existing literature

• Contribution of the conclusions and recommendations

The evaluation must be conducted based on the review form provided in the system. Each criterion should be scored and supported by detailed feedback.

Providing Constructive Feedback

• Reviewers should express their criticisms and suggestions clearly and constructively.

• Specific and detailed explanations should be provided to ensure that authors can understand and apply the requested revisions.

Timely Submission

• Reviewers must complete their evaluations within 7 days as specified by the congress.

Confidentiality

• Reviewers must maintain confidentiality regarding the data and information contained in the papers and should not share them with third parties.

4. Review Process Workflow

Pre-Evaluation

• Papers are pre-screened by the congress editorial team for format and content compliance.

• Papers that do not adhere to the formatting guidelines will not be forwarded for peer review.

Reviewer Assignment

• Each paper is assigned to at least two reviewers who are experts in the field.

• Reviewers must accept or decline the review invitation within 7 days of receiving the request.

Evaluation Criteria

Papers are reviewed based on the following criteria:

• Originality

• Scientific contribution

• Methodological adequacy

• Accuracy of findings

• Writing and language quality

Decision Types

Reviewers may issue one of the following recommendations:

1. Accept – The paper is ready for publication.

2. Minor Revision – Requires small modifications.

3. Major Revision – Requires significant changes.

4. Reject – The paper cannot be accepted for publication.

Submission of Review Reports

• Review reports are examined by the editorial team before being shared with the authors.

• Papers requiring revision must be corrected and resubmitted within the specified timeframe.

5. Compliance with COPE Principles

All ethical procedures in the congress follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. In this regard, the following ethical responsibilities apply to authors, reviewers, and editors:

Responsibilities of Authors

• Authors must declare that the submitted work is original, unpublished, and not under review elsewhere.

• Contributions of all authors must be clearly stated, and individuals who did not contribute should not be listed as authors.

• If any conflict of interest exists, it must be explicitly disclosed.

• Authors must obtain the necessary ethical approvals for their research and declare compliance with ethical guidelines.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Reviewers must be impartial and avoid conflicts of interest.

• Confidentiality of the review process must be maintained, and comments should focus only on the scientific content.

• Reviews should be clear, constructive, and aligned with the academic standards of the congress.

Responsibilities of Editors

• Editors are responsible for ensuring that the review process is transparent and fair.

• Final decisions are made based on reviewer feedback while adhering to ethical guidelines.

• In case of ethical violations, editors should follow COPE’s decision trees to take appropriate actions.

6. Ethical Violations and Process Management

If an ethical violation is suspected, the process will be managed in accordance with COPE’s decision trees. Ethical violations may include:

• Plagiarism (using another work partially or fully without citation),

• Fabrication of data,

• Misleading authorship (listing individuals who did not contribute as authors),

• Failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

If a violation is identified, the paper will be withdrawn, and the author(s) will be notified.

7. Reviewer Participation Conditions

• Expertise: Reviewers must have expertise and experience in the relevant research field.

• Acceptance of Invitations: Reviewers should accept invitations only if they have sufficient time and knowledge.

• Adherence to Ethical Principles: Reviewers must fully comply with academic and ethical guidelines.

8. Support Provided to Reviewers

• Guidelines and Assistance: A detailed technical guide has been prepared to help reviewers conduct the evaluation process effectively. This guide provides instructions on system usage and evaluation criteria.

• Recognition: Reviewers will receive an official certificate of appreciation upon completing their evaluations.

9. Contact Information

For inquiries regarding the review process, please contact us:

📧 Email: academicianstudies@gmail.com
📞 Phone: +998339931305