Social Determinants of Health Journal
The Social Determinants of Health journal (SDH) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, and constructive peer review process. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated based on their scholarly merit, originality, validity, and alignment with the journal's scope. This policy outlines the principles, processes, and responsibilities governing peer review at SDH.
The SDH journal employs a double-blind peer review process:
Reviewers are anonymous to the authors
Authors are anonymous to the reviewers
This model allows reviewers to provide candid, unbiased assessments without concern for personal or professional repercussions, while ensuring authors receive constructive feedback to strengthen their work.
| Stage | Description | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| Initial Editorial Screening | The Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor performs an initial assessment to determine suitability, adherence to submission guidelines, and alignment with journal scope. Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the scope or fail basic quality standards may be rejected at this stage (desk rejection). | 1-2 weeks |
| Assignment to Associate Editor | Manuscripts passing initial screening are assigned to an Associate Editor with relevant expertise, who manages the review process. | 1–5 days |
| Reviewer Invitation | The Associate Editor identifies and invites at least two qualified reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest. | 3–7 days |
| Review Conduct | Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit detailed comments and recommendations. | 4-8 weeks |
| Editorial Decision | Based on reviewer reports and their own evaluation, the Associate Editor makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision. | 2 week |
| Decision Communication | Authors receive the decision along with reviewer comments (anonymized). | Same day as decision |
Total average time from submission to first decision: 8–12 weeks
Reviewers are selected based on:
Expertise: Demonstrated knowledge and publication record in the manuscript's subject area
Reputation: Standing in the scientific community
Availability: Willingness and ability to provide timely reviews
Diversity: Efforts are made to include reviewers from diverse geographic regions, career stages, and backgrounds
Conflict of Interest: Absence of competing interests that could bias evaluation
The journal maintains a database of qualified reviewers and regularly updates it based on performance and feedback.
Reviewers are encouraged to provide structured, constructive feedback. The journal's online review form includes the following sections:
Accept: Suitable for publication as submitted (rare)
Minor Revision: Requires small corrections or clarifications
Major Revision: Requires substantial changes and additional work
Reject and Resubmit: Manuscript has potential but requires fundamental changes; may be considered as a new submission
Reject: Not suitable for publication in SDH
Overall assessment of the manuscript's suitability
Any concerns about ethical issues, plagiarism, or data integrity
Recommendation regarding the need for statistical review
Suggestions for additional reviewers (if appropriate)
Reviewers should provide detailed, constructive comments organized by:
Overall assessment: Brief summary of the work and its significance
Major comments: Significant concerns requiring attention (e.g., study design, methodology, data interpretation, conclusions)
Minor comments: Specific suggestions for improvement (e.g., clarity, organization, language, references)
Specific points: Line-by-line comments where applicable
Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts based on:
| Criterion | Questions to Consider |
|---|---|
| Originality | Does the work offer new insights, data, or perspectives? Is the research question novel or important? |
| Significance | Does the work advance knowledge in the field? Are the findings relevant to policy, practice, or future research? |
| Methodological Quality | Is the study design appropriate and rigorous? Are methods clearly described and reproducible? Are analytical approaches sound? |
| Ethical Standards | Does the study comply with ethical requirements (consent, approval, etc.)? Are ethical issues appropriately addressed? |
| Clarity of Presentation | Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written? Are figures and tables effective and necessary? |
| Interpretation and Conclusions | Are conclusions supported by the data? Are limitations acknowledged and discussed? |
| References | Are references appropriate, current, and accurately cited? |
Based on reviewer recommendations and the Associate Editor's evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:
| Decision | Meaning | Authors' Next Steps |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Manuscript is acceptable for publication as is or with minor editorial changes | No further action required; manuscript moves to production |
| Minor Revision | Manuscript requires small corrections or clarifications | Submit revised manuscript within 2–3 weeks with point-by-point response to reviewers |
| Major Revision | Manuscript requires substantial changes; may be sent back to reviewers | Submit revised manuscript within 4–8 weeks with detailed response; revised version will be re-evaluated |
| Reject and Resubmit | Manuscript has potential but needs fundamental changes; current version rejected | Undertake major revisions and resubmit as a new submission (with explanation of changes) |
| Reject | Manuscript not suitable for publication in SDH; decision is final | Consider submitting to another journal; no further action with SDH |
Authors who believe a decision was based on misunderstanding or error may submit an appeal. See the Complaints and Appeals section in the Publication Ethics statement for detailed procedures.
If authors have concerns about reviewer conduct (e.g., biased, disrespectful, or unethical comments), they should contact the Editor-in-Chief at sdhj@sbmu.ac.ir. Complaints will be investigated confidentially in accordance with COPE guidelines.
The SDH journal values the essential contributions of its reviewers and offers the following recognition:
Annual Acknowledgment: A list of reviewers who contributed during the previous year is published annually in the journal
Certificate of Review: Reviewers may request a certificate acknowledging their service
Continuing Education: Reviewers gain insight into current research and methodological developments
Professional Development: Review experience contributes to professional growth and may be included in academic portfolios
Publons/ORCID Integration: Reviewers may choose to have their review activity tracked through Publons or linked to their ORCID record (where enabled)
The editorial office monitors reviewer performance to ensure quality and timeliness:
Timeliness: Reviewers who consistently miss deadlines may receive fewer invitations
Quality: Reviews that are consistently superficial, unprofessional, or unhelpful may result in removal from the reviewer database
Responsiveness: Prompt responses to invitations are appreciated
Reviewers who provide exceptional service may be recognized and considered for editorial board positions.
The SDH journal follows COPE guidelines for ethical aspects of peer review:
Any suspected ethical violations during peer review will be investigated thoroughly.
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| How long does peer review take? | Average time from submission to first decision is 3–4 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the need for revisions. |
| How many reviewers evaluate each manuscript? | Typically, at least two independent reviewers. Additional reviewers may be consulted for complex cases or statistical review. |
| Can I suggest reviewers for my manuscript? | Yes, authors may suggest up to 3 potential reviewers in the cover letter. Please provide full names, institutional email addresses, and areas of expertise. Suggestions are considered but not guaranteed. |
| Can I request that certain reviewers not be used? | Yes, authors may request exclusion of specific reviewers with a valid reason (e.g., ongoing collaboration, competitive relationship). |
| Will I know who reviewed my manuscript? | No, SDH uses double-blind review, so reviewers remain anonymous to authors. |
| What if I disagree with reviewer comments? | In your revision response letter, you may respectfully explain why you disagree with specific comments and provide justification. The editor will consider your response. |
| Can I become a reviewer without having published extensively? | Early-career researchers with relevant expertise and publications (including as co-authors) may be considered. Demonstrating knowledge through quality publications is essential. |
For questions about the review process, reviewer invitations, or reviewer account management:
Reviewer Coordinator
Editorial Office: sdh@sbmu.ac.ir
This Reviewing Policy is effective as of January 2024 and is reviewed periodically to align with best practices and COPE recommendations.