Peer Review Process

JDHAB applies a rigorous and independent peer-review process to ensure scientific quality, integrity, and relevance at the interface of digital health and biomaterials.

1) Initial screening and Technical Validation.
All submissions undergo an initial screening by the editorial office to assess alignment with the journal’s scope, completeness of submitted files, and compliance with the official JDHAB template. Submissions that fail to meet these technical standards will be returned to authors prior to editorial assessment.

2) Editorial assessment and Similarity Check.
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates the manuscript’s originality and scientific contribution. JDHAB employs similarity screening (iThenticate/Crossref) at this stage to ensure research integrity before proceeding to external peer review.

3) Double-Anonymized External Peer Review.
Research manuscripts undergo double-anonymized (double-blind) peer review by at least two independent experts. Reviewers are selected based on subject-matter expertise, publication record, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

4) Editorials and Invited Content.
Editorials, commentaries, and invited perspectives undergo internal editorial assessment to ensure alignment with the journal’s standards, though they may not undergo external double-blind peer review.

5) Editorial Independence and Conflict of Interest.
To ensure impartiality, submissions authored by the Editor-in-Chief or other members of the Editorial Office are handled independently by an External Ad Hoc Editor or a designated senior member of the Editorial Board.

6) Editorial Decision and Revision Workflow.
Editorial decisions include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Authors must provide a detailed point-by-point response to all reviewers’ comments. Revised submissions may be subjected to additional rounds of review to ensure methodological and technical compliance.

7) Research Integrity and Ethical Oversight.
JDHAB maintains a rigorous oversight of data and digital image integrity. Concerns related to authorship, redundant publication, or potential misconduct are handled in accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) best practices.

8) Timeliness and Communication.
JDHAB is committed to an efficient editorial workflow, aiming for a rapid first decision without compromising rigor. Authors can track manuscript status in real-time through the journal’s submission system.