Editorial Process

JKAHS is dedicated to facilitate authors or contributors to disseminate knowledge for the good of all. We value unbiased, methodologically rigorous and ethically sound research work that broadens our understanding in the fields of health sciences regardless of the perceived nobelty or positive versus null research findings. Innovative research works the findings of which are valuable to meet the basic needs of the people  living in the low-resoure settings are our priority.

Before submitting a manuscript to the JKAHS, the authors are supposed to make sure that the manuscript is in line with the aim and scope of the journal and it has not been published in any journal previously, or is not under consideration for publication in any other journal or other citable forms. Authors are required to ensure that no material or tools like questionnaires, software, or instruments that are used in the manuscript infringe existing copyrights or other rights of the third party.

All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the managing editor to ensure completeness of the submission, its alignment with the aim and scope of the  journal, its adherence to the basic ethics guidelines and general format. The managing editor may contact the corresponding author as necessary for example requesting the authors to format the manuscript as per the author guidelines. If the managing editor finds the submission unsuitable for publication on the intitial assessment, he/she recommends his/her decision and the Editor-in-Chief  makes the final decision and communicates the same to the corresponding author. If the managing editor decides that the submission is suitable for review, a section editor (e.g., academic or other editors) is assigned for the manuscript. The responsible section editor  assesses the submission for its quality and assigns at least two peer-reviewers (national and/or international) who are the experts in the corresponding field to assess the manuscript. If the quality of the manuscript does not meet the minimum criteria of the journal in the assessment of the section editor, he/she may recommend a descision to the Editor-in –Chief not to publish the manuscript.  We adopt the double-blind peer review policy in which the identity of the author is concealed from the reviewer and vice versa; for avoiding possible bias. The section editor communicates the editorial and the peer-review comments along with the provisional editorial decision on the submission to the corresponding author. Possible provisional decisions are ‘Accepted for publication’,  ‘Minor revisions required’, ‘Major revisions required’, ‘Unable to publish’. We make every effort to reach an initial decision within six weeks of submission. As ‘Accepted for publication’ decision in this phase is uncommon, we encourage the authors to address the concerns raised by the editors and the reviewers and submit the revised manuscript. The revised manuscript is assessed by the same section editor and may be forwarded to the same peer-reviewer for the second round of review as necessary. The section editor communicates his decision to the Editor-in-Chief to publish or not to publish the manuscript based on his/her assessment of the manuscript plus the peer-reviewers’ comments. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision and communicates the same to the corresponding author.