Rigorous Evaluation Protocol
To uphold academic integrity and mitigate implicit bias, the International Journal of Traditional & Integrative Health Sciences (IJTIHS) employs a strict double-blind peer review model. The identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation workflow. All review procedures are conducted in compliance with guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
Author affiliations and reviewer identities are masked at all stages of assessment.
Manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent subject-matter specialists.
Reviewers must declare any financial, institutional, or personal competing interests.
Final acceptance decisions rest solely on scholarly merit, originality, and validity.
Manuscript Review & Decision Lifecycle
End-to-end procedural flowchart depicting the editorial and peer-review evaluation path.
Workflow Breakdown
Desk Screening & Technical Assessment
Upon submission, the Editorial Office assesses scope alignment, formatting compliance, and ethical approvals. Automated plagiarism screening is executed; manuscripts exceeding the 10% similarity ceiling or exhibiting undeclared AI text are rejected immediately.
Double-Blind Referee Assignment
Eligible manuscripts are assigned to an Associate Editor who invites at least two independent expert reviewers. Referees evaluate study rationale, statistical rigor, botanical authentication, clinical outcomes, and ethical integrity without knowing the authors' identities.
Revision & Author Response
Referees submit detailed comments categorized as Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject. If revisions are required, authors must submit a point-by-point rebuttal alongside the tracked-changes manuscript within the designated time frame.
Final Editorial Determination
The Editor-in-Chief reviews the revised manuscript, referee feedback, and editorial recommendations to reach a conclusive decision. Once accepted, the manuscript enters copyediting, typesetting, DOI assignment, and Open Access dissemination.
Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
- Originality & Contribution: Does the study advance traditional, integrative, or evidence-based health sciences?
- Methodological Rigor: Are clinical trials (CONSORT), case studies (CARE), and reviews (PRISMA) compliant with EQUATOR guidelines?
- Botanical & Chemical Validity: Are plant formulations verified with voucher numbers, standardized extracts, or chromatographic profiles?
- Ethical Standards: Are institutional human (IEC) or animal (IAEC) clearances fully documented with patient consent?
- Clarity & Conclusion: Are discussions objective, conclusions supported by data, and references accurate in Vancouver format?
Standard Operational Turnaround
| Initial Technical Screening | 3–5 Days |
| First Round External Review | 3–4 Weeks |
| Author Revision Window | 2–3 Weeks |
| Final Editorial Decision | 7–10 Days |
| Proofing & Online Publication | 1–2 Weeks |