Guide for Reviewers


JOHOE adheres to a double-blind peer-review process. Each manuscript is sent to two or more reviewers in the process of blinded peer review. Peer reviewers will be asked to determine whether a manuscript could be accepted, revised, or rejected then the decision letter shows the status of the manuscript sent to the author. The review was recommended to check the novelty and originality of the manuscript, the scientific reliability, ethical aspects, the accuracy of its technical content, and its impact on and significance to the discipline.

The review process will begin with an invitation email which includes the abstract of the manuscript if the reviewers accept it, he/she will be registered in the JOHE portal and a Username and Password will be sent to him/her automatically, for continuing the review processes.the reviewer should log in to his/her profileon the reviewer's section and follow the instruction. For reviewing the manuscript, click on the ID of the manuscript, fill the form, and choose one of the options (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, and Reject), then send it to the editor.

The authors will receive a notifications email of the editorial decisions Also they could track the processes via the Online Manuscript Submission System.

  Purpose and Rewards of Reviewers                                                                                                                                 

JOHOE reviewers’ opinions of manuscripts are invaluable in helping Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board in making their decisions. Peer-reviewing will help you keep up with the field and get new understandings that will improve the quality and value of your own studies.

In appreciation of your invaluable service to the JOHOE, your name will be included in a list we publish on the webpage of reviewers who have reviewed for the JOHOE. Also, reviewers who consistently exhibit excellent reviews and respond promptly to the editorial requests are considered for invitation to the Editorial Board.

Peer Review/Responsibility for the Reviewers:

1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 1000 words.
4. Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
5. Reviewers should also call the Editor in Chief's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
6. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

      What Should be Checked While Reviewing a Manuscript?

  1. - Novelty
  2. - Scientific reliability
  3. - Originality
  4. - Valuable contribution to the science
  5. - Adding new aspects to the existed field of study
  6. - Ethical aspects
  7. - Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines
  8. - References provided to substantiate the content
  9. - Grammar, punctuation and spelling
  10. - Scientific misconduct


The scientific community scientists, researchers, students & Industry professionals are eligible for Individual Membership. We welcome you as a valuable member of our organization and Applications will be welcomed from interested individuals who are able to demonstrate a minimum of five years’ experience as a lecturer, researcher, peer reviewer, and author of at least 5 published peer-reviewed scholarly articles and sufficient Curriculum vitae. The editorial board members will be suggested and appointed by director-in charge, editor in chief an associate editor, and after confirmation by him/herself. This will be acceptable for two-years and a renewable mandate. We are pleased that you have accepted our invitation to join the JOHOE Membership.


Editorial Review and Publication

JOHOE’s authors will be sent notifications of the manuscript’s receipt and editorial decisions by email. During the peer-reviewing process, authors can check the status of their manuscript via the Online Manuscript Submission System.

All submissions to the JOHOE go through a double-blind peer-review process to ensure content quality. At the first stage, a technical editor checks format and style of manuscript to assure its compatibility with the JOHOE’s guide for authors. If authors have not considered the guides, the manuscript will be sent back to authors for compatibility. The manuscript will be then assigned to section editors, based on the subject area and editor-in-chief decision, for a fast pre-review screening within 5 days. Section editors check the manuscript for content quality (with a focus on methodology, originality, and contribution to knowledge and practice) and use of English. The decision at this stage is fast reject, revise and re-submit, or assign to external reviewers for detailed evaluation process. Selection of external reviewers is based on their scientific background and experience, previous works, authors’ suggestion, and expertise. Every attempt is made at the JOHOE to obtain at least 2-3 strong reviews on each manuscript. Editor-in-Chief receives the reviewers’ comments and sends them along with decision letter to corresponding author.

JOHOE adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures the high quality of published articles. JOHOE’s reviewers are required to declare their conflict of interests and maintain the confidentiality about the manuscripts they review.

 As JOHOE is a rapid response journal, the review process takes between 3 to 6 months.

JOHOE decision letter determines the status of manuscript in five ways:

1. Acceptance: the manuscript could be published electronically. This process lasts between one to two weeks. Before electronic publication, corresponding author should verify a proof copy of the paper. JOHOE supports the Advance Access initiative by which papers that have been copyedited and typeset but not yet paginated for inclusion in an issue of the journal are appeared online upon finishing with the review process. Advance accessed papers will be in a queue to be published in one of JOHOE’s upcoming issues.

2. Minor Revision: authors will receive comments on their manuscript and will be asked to submit a revised copy (showing all changes they have made to the manuscript using Track and Change or highlighted colour) beside a response to reviewer file in which they need to respond to each and every comment of reviewer one by one (for each reviewer separately). Revisions should be submitted in 5 weeks after decision letter.

3. Major Revision: it means a chance to reorganize the manuscript to meet the required scientific criteria for another review process. Here also authors are asked to submit a revised copy (showing all changes they have made to the manuscript using Track and Change or highlighted colour) beside a response to reviewer file in which they need to respond to each and every comment of reviewer one by one (for each reviewer separately). Revisions should be submitted in 5 weeks after decision letter.

Revisions should be submitted in 7 weeks after decision letter. Otherwise, authors need to go through a resubmission process.

4. Rejection: in most cases, methodological and scientific concerns are the main origins of rejection. Causes of rejection will be sent to the authors to provide more chance for them for publication in other journals. 


Accepted manuscripts will be edited according to the JOHOE’s Guide for Authors (this does not include language editing) and returned to the corresponding author for final approval. All contributing authors are responsible for all statements made in their manuscript during editing and production that are authorized by the corresponding author.


Requests for publishing corrections should be sent to the editorial office. Corrections will be reviewed by editors and are published immediately and linked online to the original paper. 

JOHOE Submission to Publication Process


Visual Guide for Revierwers (video)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             


Evaluation form

In line with review policies, JOHOE has prepared the following form for reviewers. This form will visible when the reviewers login into their account and accept the article's judgment.


1. Is the subject repetitive. Please make a comment.

2. Is the title appropriate, concise? Does the title match the scope of the journal?If you have any suggestion please explain it:

3. Are the keywords coherent with the subject of the article? Please make a comment.

4. Are they correct and in accordance with MeSH? Please make a comment.

5. Does the introduction including a reasonable description of background, importance, and research necessity and study propose(s)? Please make a comment.

6. Is the method and the material section of the article precisely stated? Please make a comment.

7. Does the section including a definitive description of the investigation population? Please make a comment.

8. Is the sample size formula stated in the method and material section? Please make a comment.

9. Are the variables, measurement tools, and their ranges fully stated in the section? Please make a comment.

10. Does the section including a definitive description of the Data collection method? Please make a comment.

11. Does the sample size comply with the guidelines in terms of number or volume? Please make a comment.

12. Does the section including a definitive description of the sampling method? Please make a comment.

13. If there was any lack of information or mistake in study design any mistakes please explain it: 

14. Does the section including a definitive description of statistical analysis? Please make a comment.

15. Is the statistical analysis properly selected and stated? Please make a comment.

16. Are the results fully stated? Please make a comment.

17. Do the results completely described the aim(s) of the study? Please make a comment.

18. Is the statistical tests properly performed? Please make a comment.

19. Are the Figs., Tables and diagrams appropriate and contain sufficient information for clarity? Please make a comment.

20. Are the tables and the picture coherent with the results? Please make a comment.

21. Are the results of the main objective stated at the beginning of the discussion? Please make a comment.

22. Have the study results interpretation and their shortcomings been clearly described and does this part of the manuscript compare the study’s data with previously published papers in this regard and addressing their similarity and differences? Please make a comment.

23. Have the appropriate interpretations of the results been made In the discussion section? Please make a comment.

24. Are suggestions being made about future research into this topic/phenomenon or what does the researcher consider the way forward'? Please make a comment.

25. Are the references up to date? Please make a comment.

26. Are references and abstract based on the format of the journal?