The SCICONX Journal of Endocrine and Diabetic Health (JEDH) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a transparent, rigorous, and ethically driven peer review system. Our review process is designed to ensure that every manuscript undergoes a fair, unbiased, and scientifically robust evaluation before publication. JEDH follows a double-blind peer review model, preserving the anonymity of both authors and reviewers to minimize potential bias and maintain integrity throughout the editorial workflow.

1. Overview of the Peer Review Workflow

Step 1: Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is evaluated by the Editorial Office to ensure:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
• Compliance with submission guidelines
• Originality and novelty
• Ethical appropriateness
• Basic scientific soundness

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk-rejected with constructive feedback, allowing authors to revise and resubmit where appropriate.

2. Assignment to an Academic Editor

If the manuscript passes the preliminary check, it is assigned to an Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, or Editorial Board Member based on:

• Subject expertise
• Methodological understanding
• Current workload
• Absence of conflicts of interest

The assigned editor oversees the entire review cycle and acts as the primary decision-maker.

3. Selection of Peer Reviewers

The handling editor invites two to three expert reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the relevant domain of:

• Endocrinology
• Diabetes and metabolic diseases
• Hormonal signaling
• Clinical endocrinology
• Molecular and cellular research
• Public health and diabetic care

Reviewer selection is guided by the following principles:

• Independence and lack of conflict of interest
• Strong publication and citation record
• Prior reviewing experience (preferred but not mandatory)
• Willingness to adhere to confidentiality and ethical standards

If sufficient responses are not received, additional reviewers may be invited.

4. Double-Blind Review Mechanism

To preserve objectivity:

• Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
• Reviewers do not know the identity of authors

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript solely based on scientific merit, clarity, reproducibility, novelty, and overall contribution to the field of endocrine and diabetic health.

5. Evaluation Criteria for Reviewers

Reviewers assess the manuscript on multiple parameters, including:

Scientific Quality

• Soundness of methodology
• Validity of results
• Strength of data interpretation
• Alignment between objectives, methods, and conclusions

Originality and Significance

• Contribution to existing literature
• Innovation or advancement in endocrinology or diabetic research

Clarity and Organization

• Structure of the manuscript
• Language quality
• Adequacy of references and data presentation

Ethical Considerations

• Research ethics compliance
• Transparency in reporting
• Declaration of conflicts of interest
• Proper handling of human or animal subjects

Reproducibility

• Methodological transparency
• Availability of data and materials

Reviewers submit detailed comments and a recommendation using one of the following categories:

• Accept as is
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Revise and Resubmit
• Reject

6. Editorial Decision-Making

The handling editor reviews:

• Reviewer comments
• Quality and depth of evaluations
• Alignment between different reviewer opinions

The editor then issues a decision based on scientific merit, originality, and suitability for the journal. If revisions are required, authors are invited to submit a revised version with a point-by-point response to reviewer comments.

7. Revision and Re-Review

Minor Revisions

Revised manuscripts are usually assessed by the handling editor and may not require re-review.

Major Revisions

Revised manuscripts are typically returned to the same reviewers for re-evaluation, unless the scope of changes requires additional reviewers.

8. Final Acceptance and Production

Once the manuscript fulfills all scientific and editorial requirements, the Editor-in-Chief issues the final acceptance. The article then proceeds to:

• Technical editing
• Proofreading
• Typesetting
• Author proof corrections
• Final publication in the journal’s online platform

9. Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

JEDH upholds strict confidentiality guidelines:

• Manuscripts and reviewer reports are confidential documents
• Reviewers may not share or discuss the manuscript with others
• Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest

Any breach of confidentiality, plagiarism, or unethical behavior results in immediate corrective action.

10. Appeal Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting:

• A formal written justification
• Evidence supporting reconsideration
• Clarification addressing reviewer/editor concerns

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates all appeals with guidance from independent editors or reviewers when necessary.

11. Commitment to Fairness and Efficiency

JEDH prioritizes both quality and timeliness. The journal strives to ensure a fair yet efficient review process:

• Initial Decision: within 2-3 days
• Peer Review Completion: 14-21 days
• Final Decision Post-Revisions: 5-7 days
• Online Publication: within 7–10 days of acceptance

The journal strives to balance thorough evaluation with timely publication, ensuring that research reaches the scientific community without unnecessary delay. We are committed to continuous improvement of the peer review system through transparent policies, reviewer training, and technological innovation.