Double-Blind Peer Review Guideline

Social Determinants of Health Journal

Last Updated: February 2026

1. Introduction

The Social Determinants of Health journal (SDH) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. This guideline outlines the journal's double-blind peer review policy and provides detailed instructions for reviewers, authors, and editors.

SDH adheres to the Core Practices and ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) , the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) , and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) .

2. Definition of Double-Blind Peer Review

The SDH journal employs a double-blind peer review process, which means:

This model ensures that neither party knows the other's identity, minimizing bias related to author gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, career stage, or reputation . Both authors and reviewers are expected to take all reasonable steps to preserve this anonymity throughout the review process .

3. Peer Review Process Flow

3.1. Overview of Steps

Total average time from submission to first decision: 3–5 weeks 

3.2. Detailed Process Description

Stage 1: Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first read by the editorial staff to assess:

• Alignment with the journal's aims and scope

• Adherence to submission guidelines and formatting requirements

• Basic scientific quality and originality

• Plagiarism screening (using iThenticate software)

Papers judged to be of insufficient interest, out of scope, or below quality standards are rejected promptly without external review to avoid delays for authors .

Stage 2: Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to an Associate Editor with relevant expertise, who:

• Identifies potential reviewers from the journal's database and personal knowledge

• Invites at least two independent experts 

• Ensures reviewers have no conflicts of interest

• May consider author-suggested reviewers (though not obligated to use them)

Stage 3: Review Conduct

Reviewers who accept invitations:

• Acknowledge the invitation promptly (within 3–5 days)

• Complete their review within the agreed timeframe (typically 2–3 weeks)

• Submit structured comments through the online review form

• Provide recommendations to the editor 

Stage 4: Editorial Decision

The Associate Editor evaluates reviewer reports and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision based on:

• Reviewer comments and recommendations

• The manuscript's scientific merit and originality

• Alignment with journal scope and standards

• Overall balance and contribution to the field 

Stage 5: Decision Communication

The editorial office communicates the decision to authors along with:

• Anonymized reviewer comments

• Specific guidance for revisions (if applicable)

• Timeline for resubmission (for revision decisions) 

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

4.1. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents :

• Do not discuss the manuscript with anyone, including colleagues, without prior editorial permission 

• Do not share the manuscript or any part of its content

• Do not use ideas or data from the manuscript for personal benefit

• Destroy or delete copies of the manuscript after submitting the review 

4.2. Timeliness

• Respond to review invitations promptly (within 3–5 days) 

• If unable to review, decline as soon as possible so alternative reviewers can be invited

• Complete reviews by the agreed-upon deadline

• If delays occur, notify the editorial office immediately 

4.3. Objectivity and Fairness

Reviews must be:

• Objective: Based on scientific merit, not personal opinions 

• Constructive: Provide helpful feedback that can improve the manuscript 

• Respectful: Avoid hostile, derogatory, or personal criticism 

• Unbiased: Free from considerations of author gender, nationality, religion, institutional affiliation, or career stage 

4.4. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline invitations or notify the editor if they have any potential conflicts of interest, including :

If unsure about a potential conflict, reviewers should consult the editor .

4.5. Expertise

• Only accept invitations for manuscripts within your area of expertise 

• Decline if you lack the necessary knowledge to provide a competent assessment

• You may suggest alternative reviewers when declining 

4.6. Ethical Vigilance

Reviewers should alert the editor to any ethical concerns, such as :

• Suspected plagiarism or duplicate publication

• Data fabrication or falsification

• Inappropriate authorship

• Ethical issues with human or animal research

• Failure to disclose conflicts of interest

4.7. Use of AI in Reviewing

Reviewers may not use AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) to generate or substantially assist in writing review comments . AI cannot substitute for the reviewer's own expertise, judgment, and critical analysis. Any use of AI for minor language editing must be disclosed to the editor.

5. Reviewer Selection Criteria

The journal selects reviewers based on :

Becoming a Reviewer: Qualified researchers interested in joining our reviewer panel may register on the journal website and contact the editorial office at reviewers@sdh.sbmu.ac.ir.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria, adapted for social determinants of health research :

6.1. Originality and Significance

6.2. Methodological Quality

6.3. Ethical Standards

6.4. Results and Interpretation

6.5. Reporting Guidelines

Reviewers should verify that the appropriate guideline was followed .

6.6. Clarity and Presentation

6.7. References

7. Writing the Review

7.1. Structure of the Review Report

Reviews should be organized into clear sections :

Confidential Comments to Editors

• Overall assessment of the manuscript's suitability

• Any concerns about ethical issues, plagiarism, or data integrity

• Recommendation regarding the need for statistical review

• Indicate willingness to review a revised version 

Comments to Authors

• Summary paragraph: Briefly summarize the manuscript and its main findings to demonstrate understanding 

• Major comments: Significant concerns that must be addressed (study design, methodology, data interpretation, conclusions)

• Minor comments: Specific suggestions for improvement (clarity, organization, language, figures/tables)

• Specific points: Reference page and line numbers where applicable 

7.2. Questions to Address in the Review

For original research articles, consider :

Abstract and Introduction:

• Does the abstract accurately summarize the research question and conclusions?

• Does the introduction provide adequate background and justify the study?

Methods:

• Are the research methods clearly described?

• Are controls appropriate?

• Could another researcher replicate the study?

• Is the statistical analysis adequate?

Results:

• Are results clearly and accurately presented?

• Do tables and figures substantiate the conclusions?

• Are they legible and properly labeled?

Discussion and Conclusions:

• Are results compared with existing research?

• Are conclusions supported by the data?

• Are limitations discussed?

For review articles, consider :

• Does the review present an unbiased summary of the current understanding?

• Does it offer a balanced view of recent work?

• Does it make a valuable contribution to the field?

• Are important references missing?

• Is it understandable for non-expert readers?

7.3. Dos and Don'ts of Peer Review 

7.4. Tone and Language

• Write clearly and be understandable to people whose first language is not English 

• Avoid complex or unusual words

• Be robust but polite when making comments 

• Treat the author's work as you would like your own to be treated 

8. Recommendation Categories

Reviewers must provide a recommendation to the editor. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief .

9. Editorial Decision-Making

9.1. Decision Process

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on :

• Reviewer comments and recommendations

• The manuscript's scientific merit and originality

• Alignment with journal scope and standards

• Overall balance and contribution to the field

9.2. Handling Conflicting Reviews

If reviewers disagree, the editor may :

• Seek additional input from a third reviewer

• Evaluate the strength of arguments presented by each reviewer

• Consider the manuscript's overall contribution

• Make a decision based on editorial judgment

The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final .

9.3. Decision Categories Communicated to Authors

10. Revisions and Resubmissions

10.1. For Authors

When submitting a revised manuscript, authors must :

• Provide a point-by-point response to reviewer comments

• Indicate how each comment has been addressed

• Highlight changes in the manuscript (using track changes or colored text)

• Submit the revised version within the allotted timeframe

• Request an extension if needed (contact the editorial office)

10.2. For Reviewers

• Reviewers who recommended major revision may be asked to evaluate the revised manuscript 

• When agreeing to review, indicate willingness to review revisions 

• Assess whether authors have adequately addressed previous comments

11. Handling Special Cases

11.1. Suspected Author Identification

In double-blind review, if a reviewer suspects they know the author's identity :

• Notify the editor if this knowledge raises potential competing interests

• Continue to review objectively if no conflict exists

• Do not attempt to confirm identity

11.2. Ethical Concerns

If ethical concerns arise during review :

• Consult COPE guidelines (https://publicationethics.org)

• Report concerns to the editor confidentially

• Do not investigate independently

• The editor will investigate following COPE flowcharts

11.3. Reviewer Misconduct

If a reviewer suspects another reviewer of misconduct, they should report to the editor confidentially.

12. Reviewer Recognition and Benefits

The SDH journal values the essential contributions of its reviewers :

13. Use of AI in Peer Review

Prohibited: Reviewers may not use generative AI or large language models (e.g., ChatGPT) to write or substantially assist in writing review reports .

Rationale:

• AI cannot ensure confidentiality of manuscript content

• AI lacks expertise to provide competent scientific assessment

• AI-generated reviews may contain errors or bias

• Reviews must reflect the reviewer's own judgment

Disclosure: Any use of AI for minor language editing must be disclosed to the editor.

14. Privacy and Confidentiality 

14.1. For Reviewers

• Manuscripts are confidential and must not be discussed or shared

• Do not make copies for personal files (destroy after review)

• Do not disclose your identity to authors

14.2. For Editors

• Do not disclose information about manuscripts to anyone other than authors and reviewers

• Protect reviewer identities

• Do not keep copies of rejected manuscripts

14.3. For Authors

• Do not attempt to determine reviewer identities

• Do not confront reviewers directly

15. Timelines and Expectations

16. Frequently Asked Questions

17. Contact Information

18. References and Resources

• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers 

• COPE Flowcharts: https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts 

• ICMJE Recommendations: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/ 

• EQUATOR Network (Reporting Guidelines): https://www.equator-network.org/