Mallomo Journal of Health (MJH) applies a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of manuscripts published in the journal. In this process, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

All manuscripts are evaluated based on their scientific merit, methodological quality, originality, relevance to the journal’s scope, clarity of presentation, and contribution to health knowledge, policy, management, services, or practice.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the Mallomo Journal of Health Online Journal System (OJS).

For peer-review purposes, authors are required to submit:

• a Title Page containing author names, affiliations, corresponding author details, ORCID iDs, and relevant declarations; and
• a Blinded Manuscript that does not contain information that directly identifies the authors or their institutions.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that identifying information has also been removed from the manuscript file properties where applicable.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team.

The screening includes assessment of:

• relevance to the Focus and Scope of MJH;
• compliance with the Author Guidelines;
• completeness of manuscript structure and metadata;
• scientific relevance and originality;
• language and overall presentation;
• ethical requirements;
• potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or inappropriate text reuse; and
• suitability for external peer review.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal’s scope, lack sufficient scientific quality, substantially fail to comply with the journal’s requirements, or present significant ethical concerns may be rejected at this stage without external review.

This decision is commonly referred to as editorial rejection or desk rejection.

3. Assignment to a Handling Editor

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an appropriate Handling Editor/Section Editor based on the manuscript topic and the editor’s area of expertise.

The Handling Editor is responsible for coordinating the peer-review process and selecting suitable reviewers.

Editors must avoid handling manuscripts where a potential conflict of interest may compromise, or appear to compromise, editorial independence.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who have relevant expertise in the subject area and have no known conflict of interest with the authors or the research.

Reviewer selection may consider:

• academic expertise;
• relevant publication history;
• methodological expertise;
• absence of conflicts of interest;
• professional independence; and
• ability to provide a constructive and timely review.

Whenever possible, MJH seeks reviewers from institutions different from those of the authors.

If the reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the editor may invite an additional reviewer before making an editorial decision.

5. Double-Anonymized Peer Review

MJH uses a double-anonymized review system.

This means that:

• reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities; and
• authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and all associated materials as confidential documents. Manuscripts under review must not be shared, discussed with unauthorized individuals, or used for personal or professional advantage.

6. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to provide an objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessment of the manuscript.

The evaluation generally considers:

Originality and Scientific Contribution

Whether the manuscript presents sufficiently original work and contributes meaningful knowledge to the relevant field.

Relevance

Whether the study is relevant to the aims and scope of Mallomo Journal of Health.

Introduction and Research Objective

Whether the research problem, background, knowledge gap, rationale, and objectives are clearly presented.

Methodological Quality

Whether the research design, sampling, instruments, data collection, analysis, and ethical procedures are appropriate and adequately described.

Results

Whether the findings are presented clearly, accurately, and consistently with the methods.

Discussion

Whether the findings are appropriately interpreted, compared with relevant literature, and discussed in relation to their scientific, policy, managerial, or practical implications.

Conclusion

Whether conclusions are supported by the study findings and appropriately address the research objectives.

Tables and Figures

Whether tables and figures are relevant, understandable, accurate, and appropriately presented.

References

Whether references are relevant, sufficiently current, accurate, and appropriately used.

Research Ethics and Integrity

Whether there are concerns regarding ethics approval, informed consent, plagiarism, duplicate publication, data integrity, authorship, conflicts of interest, or other research integrity issues.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

Accept Submission
The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial changes.

Minor Revision
The manuscript requires limited modifications that do not substantially affect the study design, analysis, or principal conclusions.

Major Revision
Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered further.

Resubmit for Review
The manuscript requires significant revision and should undergo another round of external peer review.

Decline Submission
The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form or has major scientific, methodological, ethical, or scope-related limitations.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal editors.

8. Editorial Decision

The Handling Editor evaluates the reviewers’ reports and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief or authorized editorial decision-maker.

The final decision is based on:

• reviewer comments;
• scientific quality of the manuscript;
• methodological rigor;
• originality;
• relevance to the journal;
• ethical compliance; and
• the authors’ responses to previous review comments, where applicable.

The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for publication decisions.

Editorial decisions are made independently of any financial considerations, including Article Processing Charges.

9. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

1. a revised manuscript with all requested changes addressed; and
2. a detailed Response to Reviewers explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.

Authors should respond to comments point by point.

Where authors disagree with a reviewer recommendation, they should provide a clear, respectful, and scientifically justified explanation.

Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the Handling Editor when additional external review is not considered necessary.

Revision does not automatically guarantee acceptance.

10. Additional Review

A manuscript may undergo more than one round of peer review when necessary.

An additional reviewer may also be invited when:

• the initial reviewers provide conflicting recommendations;
• additional methodological expertise is required;
• substantial revisions introduce new analyses or interpretations; or
• the editor considers further independent assessment necessary.

11. Acceptance

A manuscript is accepted only when the editors are satisfied that:

• reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed;
• the scientific and methodological standards of MJH have been met;
• ethical requirements have been fulfilled; and
• the manuscript is suitable for publication.

Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to:

Copyediting → Layout/Typesetting → Author Proofreading → Final Publication

Acceptance does not exempt authors from responding to editorial or production queries that may arise during these stages.

12. Publication Timeline

MJH seeks to conduct peer review efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of the editorial process.

The duration of peer review may vary depending on:

• manuscript complexity;
• reviewer availability;
• number of review rounds;
• responsiveness of authors;
• requirement for additional expert review; and
• editorial or ethical issues requiring further assessment.

For this reason, MJH does not guarantee acceptance or a fixed decision time.

The journal does not offer editorial decisions in exchange for accelerated publication fees.

13. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, their judgment.

Potential conflicts may include:

• recent collaboration with the authors;
• employment at the same institution;
• supervisory or personal relationships;
• direct academic competition;
• financial interests; or
• other circumstances that may affect impartiality.

A reviewer or editor with a significant conflict of interest should decline involvement in the manuscript.

14. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to MJH are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose:

• manuscript contents;
• author information;
• unpublished data;
• reviewer reports; or
• editorial correspondence

to unauthorized parties.

Information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal benefit or competitive advantage.

15. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based exclusively on the academic merit, scientific quality, ethical integrity, relevance, and suitability of the manuscript.

Decisions are not influenced by:

• author nationality;
• institutional affiliation;
• academic rank;
• personal relationships;
• political or religious background;
• commercial considerations; or
• payment of publication fees.

16. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors

Manuscripts submitted by members of the MJH Editorial Board are subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as other submissions.

An editor who is an author or has a conflict of interest with a manuscript will not participate in:

• reviewer selection;
• peer-review management; or
• the final publication decision.

The manuscript will be handled independently by another qualified editor.

17. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a factual or procedural error may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office.

An appeal should:

• clearly identify the manuscript;
• explain the basis of the appeal;
• address the scientific or procedural issue involved; and
• provide supporting evidence where appropriate.

Appeals are evaluated independently and do not automatically result in reversal of the original decision.

Abusive, offensive, or repeated appeals without substantive justification may not be considered.