JHER operates a peer review system intended to support objectivity, quality assurance, and scholarly improvement. Submitted manuscripts that pass editorial screening are evaluated by independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.
Review Model
The journal ordinarily uses a double-blind peer review process in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another during the review stage. Where the editorial office considers another review arrangement necessary for a specific submission type, the applicable process will be communicated appropriately.
Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject expertise, academic competence, research experience, and the absence of obvious conflicts of interest. The journal seeks reviewers who are capable of providing fair, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.
Reviewer Assessment Areas
Reviewers are generally asked to comment on:
- originality and contribution to knowledge;
- relevance to the field and to the journal’s scope;
- theoretical and methodological soundness;
- adequacy of literature engagement;
- clarity of presentation and organisation;
- ethical compliance; and
- suitability for publication.
Possible Editorial Outcomes
After review, the journal may issue one of the following decisions:
- accept;
- accept with minor revisions;
- invite major revisions and resubmission; or
Review Timelines
The journal aims to complete peer review within a reasonable time, but timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of revision rounds required. Authors will be informed where delays arise.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts sent for review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are expected not to share, reproduce, or use manuscript content for personal advantage prior to publication.
Constructive Review
The journal expects reviewer reports to be professional, specific, courteous, and directed toward scholarly improvement. Offensive, discriminatory, or non-substantive review comments are not accepted.
Editorial Independence
Final decisions on manuscripts rest with the journal’s editorial leadership. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and are considered together with editorial judgment, policy requirements, and the overall standard of the journal.