JDHAB applies a rigorous, independent, and transparent peer-review process designed to ensure scientific quality, methodological soundness, research integrity, and relevance at the interface of digital health and advanced biomaterials.
The peer-review workflow combines editorial screening, technical validation, similarity assessment, independent reviewer evaluation, ethical oversight, and editorial decision-making based on scholarly merit.
All submissions undergo an initial editorial screening to assess scope alignment, completeness of submitted materials, compliance with the official JDHAB template, and adherence to essential editorial and ethical requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet these standards may be returned to authors prior to formal editorial assessment.
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates the manuscript’s originality, scientific merit, methodological quality, relevance to the journal’s scope, and potential contribution to the field. JDHAB employs similarity screening tools, including iThenticate and Crossref Similarity Check when applicable, to support research integrity before external review.
Research manuscripts undergo double-blind peer review by a minimum of two independent reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the relevant subject area. Reviewers are selected according to subject-matter expertise, publication record, methodological competence, and the absence of conflicts of interest. Additional reviewers may be invited when specialized expertise is required.
Editorials, commentaries, perspectives, and other invited contributions undergo internal editorial assessment to ensure scientific relevance, editorial consistency, and compliance with the journal’s ethical standards. Depending on the nature of the contribution, external peer review may be conducted at the discretion of the Editorial Office.
JDHAB maintains strict editorial independence. Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Office, or Editorial Board members are managed independently by an External Ad Hoc Editor or a designated senior editor with no involvement from the submitting editor. Editorial decisions are made exclusively on scholarly merit.
Editorial decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Authors are expected to provide a detailed point-by-point response to reviewers’ and editors’ comments. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of peer review when necessary to ensure scientific, methodological, ethical, and technical compliance.
JDHAB maintains rigorous oversight of authorship transparency, reporting transparency, originality, data integrity, image integrity, ethical compliance, and research reporting quality. Concerns involving plagiarism, redundant publication, image manipulation, data reliability, authorship disputes, or potential misconduct are handled in accordance with the principles and best practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
JDHAB is committed to an efficient, transparent, and accountable editorial workflow. Authors may monitor manuscript progress through the journal’s submission system and will be informed of editorial decisions and required actions throughout the review process. The journal seeks timely editorial decisions without compromising scientific rigor, review quality, editorial independence, or ethical standards.
