Peer review in all its form plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. Journal of Happiness and Health follows a blind peer-reviewing procedure. Blind review is a method used to make sure scientific publications are produced with the highest quality.

Blind review is a method used to make sure scientific publications are produced with the highest quality. A blinded manuscript without any author names and affiliations in the text or on the title page. Self-identifying citations and references in the article text should be avoided A separate title page, containing the title, all author names, affiliations, and the contact information of the corresponding author. Any acknowledgments, disclosures, or funding information should also be included on this page.

The studies submitted to the Journal of Happiness and Health are reviewed by the editors first. At this stage, the studies which are not related to the journal's aim and scope, are weak in terms of language and wording, lack originality, contain critical scientific mistakes, and do not meet the publishing criteria are rejected. The studies deemed acceptable, on the other hand, are submitted to a field editor related to the subject of study that the work focuses on.

In the pre-review process, the field editors evaluate the introduction and literature, method, findings, results, discussion parts of the studies in detail with respect to the publishing policies and scope of the journal as well as originality. As a result of this process, those studies that are found unacceptable are returned within four weeks at the latest together with the field editor report. And the studies which are deemed appropriate are assigned to reviewers.

Reviewers are assigned according to the content of the studies and their subject of expertise. The field editor who reviews the study recommends two reviewers, based on their subject of expertise, from the reviewer pool of Education and Science or a new reviewer related to the subject of study addressed in the article. The recommendations are then evaluated by the editors and the studies are passed on to the reviewers who are obligated to guarantee that they will not share any document or detail about the study they review.

In general, the reviewer reports are based on the originality of the studies, methods, ethical considerations, consistent presentation of the findings and results, and analysis of the studies with respect to literature. This evaluation is done according to the following:

  1. Introduction and literature: the reviewer's report includes views about the presentation and aims of the problem addressed in the study, the importance of the topic, the scope of the related literature, the originality, and the topicality of the study.
  2. Method: the reviewer report includes views about the appropriateness of the research method, sample choice, and properties, validity and reliability issues, as well as data collection and data analysis.
  3. Findings: the reviewer report includes views about the presentation of the findings obtained through the method, the accuracy of the analysis methods, the consistency of the aims and findings of the study, the presentation of tables, diagrams, and visuals that are needed, and the conceptual evaluation of the scales.
  4. Evaluation and Discussion: the reviewer's report includes views about discussions based on findings, suitability with the research question(s) and hypothesis(s), generalizability, and applicability.
  5. Results and Suggestions: the reviewer's report includes views about the contribution to literature, recommendations for future studies, and suggestions about applications in the field.
  6. Style and Wording: the reviewer's report includes views about whether the title comprises the content of the study, whether the language is used accurately, and whether APA7 rules are observed in giving references and in-text references in parallel with the language of the full text.
  7. Overall Evaluation: the reviewer's report includes views about the originality of the study as a whole and the contribution it makes to the education literature and applications.

In this process, the peer reviewer's identities are kept confidential and not revealed to the authors. In the same manner, the author's identities are not revealed to the peer reviewers. This ensures a fair and unbiased review of every manuscript.

Based on the review done by the field editor and reviewers, editors report the views of the editorial board to the author(s) in a week at the latest along with the suggestions made by the field editor and reviewers. In this process, the studies that are not accepted for publication are returned without a request for plagiarism detection. The final decision about the accepted studies is made based on the results of the plagiarism detection report.