Peer review plays an essential role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and reliability of the scholarly record. Journal of Happiness and Health (JOHAH) employs a rigorous double-anonymous peer-review process for manuscripts considered suitable for external evaluation.

In the double-anonymous review process, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review procedure. Authors are required to submit a fully anonymized manuscript and should avoid information that may directly identify them. A separate title page should include the manuscript title, author names, institutional affiliations, corresponding author information, acknowledgments, funding information, and relevant disclosures.

Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their suitability for the journal. The assessment considers the journal’s aims and scope, originality, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical standards, and compliance with the journal’s submission requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic editorial or scientific criteria, or that fall outside the journal’s scope, may be declined without external peer review.

Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are assigned for peer review. The editorial team is responsible for coordinating the review process and ensuring that appropriate and independent reviewers are selected.

Reviewer Selection and Evaluation

Manuscripts proceeding to external review are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their scholarly expertise, research experience, and relevance to the manuscript topic.

Reviewer selection is conducted with consideration of objectivity, independence, confidentiality, and potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers are expected to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest and should decline the review when they are unable to provide an impartial assessment.

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and all information obtained during the review process as confidential. They must not share, reproduce, or use unpublished information for personal or professional purposes.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the nature and requirements of the submitted work. The evaluation may include the following considerations:

• Originality and scientific significance;
• Relevance and adequacy of the literature review;
• Theoretical contribution and conceptual clarity;
• Appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;
• Quality and appropriateness of data analysis;
• Clarity and consistency of the findings;
• Quality of discussion, interpretation, and implications;
• Validity and appropriateness of the conclusions;
• Ethical standards and compliance with relevant requirements; and
• Clarity, organization, and academic quality of the manuscript.

For empirical studies, reviewers may consider the appropriateness of the research design, sampling procedures, measurement instruments, data analysis, and interpretation of results. For theoretical, review, and other types of manuscripts, evaluation criteria are applied in accordance with the nature and objectives of the submission.

Authors are expected to comply with the journal’s formatting and reporting requirements, including APA 7th edition guidelines where applicable.

Editorial Decision

Editorial decisions are based on the overall scientific evaluation of the manuscript, reviewer reports, and editorial assessment. The possible decisions are:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication and proceeds to the production process.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions before a final decision can be made.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be returned to the original reviewers or, where appropriate, additional reviewers for further evaluation.
• Reject: The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in the journal.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized member of the editorial team, taking into consideration the peer-review reports and the overall evaluation of the manuscript. Editorial decisions are based on the scientific merit, originality, relevance, methodological quality, and ethical standards of the submission.

Where revisions are requested, authors should provide a clear response to the reviewers’ and editorial comments and indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript. Revised manuscripts may undergo further editorial or external review as considered necessary.

Confidentiality, Ethics, and Integrity

JOHAH is committed to maintaining confidentiality, impartiality, transparency, and integrity throughout the editorial and peer-review process. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and author identities are not disclosed to reviewers in the double-anonymous review process.

All individuals involved in the editorial and peer-review process are expected to disclose relevant conflicts of interest and to comply with applicable publication ethics standards.

Manuscripts may be screened for plagiarism, inappropriate text overlap, and other forms of publication misconduct during the editorial process. Where concerns regarding research or publication ethics arise, the journal may take appropriate action in accordance with recognized publication ethics principles.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors have the right to appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant error or misunderstanding has affected the decision. Appeals should be submitted to the journal through its official editorial contact within a reasonable period following notification of the decision.

An appeal should include:

• A clear and reasoned justification for the appeal;
• A detailed response to the relevant reviewer or editorial comments; and
• Supporting information or evidence, where applicable.

Appeals are considered independently and objectively. Where necessary, additional members of the editorial team or independent experts may be consulted. The final decision regarding an appeal rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized senior editorial representative.

Complaints concerning the editorial or peer-review process are handled confidentially and are assessed in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies and applicable publication ethics principles.

JOHAH is committed to providing a fair, consistent, transparent, and timely peer-review process while maintaining the quality and integrity of the scholarly record.