Health and Disease Research is committed to a fair, transparent, and ethically responsible editorial process. Every submission is assessed for its suitability, scientific quality, reporting, and compliance with the journal’s editorial and ethical requirements. The journal uses a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during peer review.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal’s designated submission channel and should follow the current Instructions for Authors. Submissions should include all required files, declarations, and supporting documents.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial office checks whether the submission is complete and follows the journal’s basic requirements. An editor assesses whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope and appears to meet minimum standards for relevance, originality, clarity, and scientific merit. Submissions that are out of scope, materially incomplete, or unsuitable may be returned to the authors or declined without external peer review.

3. Research Integrity and Ethical Checks

As appropriate, the journal may check for text overlap, duplicate publication, and other potential research-integrity concerns. Editors also assess whether relevant declarations are provided, including ethics approval or exemption, informed consent, clinical trial registration, funding, conflicts of interest, and data availability. Requirements depend on the study design and applicable standards. Concerns may be referred to authors for clarification or handled under the journal’s relevant policies.

4. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are normally sent to independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers may be selected from the editorial board or invited from qualified researchers and professionals outside the journal. Reviewers are asked to declare relevant competing interests and maintain confidentiality. Under double-anonymous peer review, authors do not know reviewers’ identities, and reviewers are not provided with authors’ identities as part of the review process. 5. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to their article type and subject area. Considerations may include:

• Originality, relevance, and contribution to knowledge.
• Clarity of the research question, objectives, or hypothesis.
• Appropriateness and transparency of study design, methods, sampling, and analysis.
• Accuracy and clarity of results, tables, figures, and supporting information.
• Whether the discussion and conclusions are supported by the evidence.
• Adequacy of literature, citations, and reporting of limitations.
• Compliance with applicable ethical requirements and reporting standards.
• Clarity, organisation, and suitability for the journal’s readership.

6. Editorial Decision

After considering reviewers’ reports and the manuscript as a whole, the editor makes an independent editorial decision. Reviewers provide advice; the final decision rests with the editor. Possible outcomes include:

• Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
• Minor revision: limited changes or clarifications are required.
• Major revision: substantial changes, further explanation, or additional analyses are needed before reconsideration.
• Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements for scope, quality, validity, originality, ethics, or contribution.

The journal communicates the decision to the corresponding author, together with relevant reviewer comments and instructions. The journal may decline a manuscript without external review where it is clearly unsuitable or serious concerns prevent further consideration.

7. Revision and Reassessment

When revision is invited, authors should submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed. If a suggestion is not adopted, authors should provide a reasoned explanation. Revisions should clearly indicate changes, following the journal’s instructions.

The editor may assess a revised submission directly or return it to the original reviewers. More than one revision round may be required. A revision invitation does not guarantee acceptance; the manuscript must continue to meet the journal’s standards.

8. Final Acceptance and Production

A manuscript is accepted only after the editor determines that it meets the journal’s scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements. Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to production, which may include copyediting, formatting, reference and metadata checks, and preparation of proofs.

Authors may be asked to check page proofs for typographical or production errors and confirm that the article has been reproduced accurately. Substantive changes at proof stage may require editorial approval.

9. Publication

The final article is published online or in a journal issue according to the journal’s publication arrangements. A digital object identifier (DOI) and other bibliographic details are provided where applicable. Publication timing may depend on completion of editorial and production checks.

10. Confidentiality, Conflicts of Interest, and Appeals

Manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are treated as confidential and used only for editorial purposes. Reviewers and editors must disclose relevant competing interests and must not use unpublished information for personal advantage. Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, or other ethical concerns are handled confidentially under the journal’s policies.

Authors who believe an editorial decision involved a significant procedural error or misunderstanding may contact the editorial office with a clear, evidence-based explanation. An appeal is not a guarantee that the decision will change. The journal may seek an additional editorial assessment where appropriate.

11. Expected Timelines

The time required for screening, peer review, revision, and production may vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the time authors need to revise. Any target timelines communicated by the journal should be treated as estimates rather than guarantees. The editorial office will provide updates or instructions when necessary.

12. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly quality, relevance, ethical compliance, and suitability for the journal. Decisions should not be influenced by authors’ personal characteristics, institutional affiliations, nationality, or commercial considerations unrelated to editorial quality. The editor retains responsibility for the final decision, even when reviewers disagree.