Peer Review Process

 1. Overview of peer review

• All research articles and case reports in The Homoeopathic Quill undergo external peer review before acceptance; only clearly labelled editorials, news items, and book reviews may be exempt.
• The journal uses a double‑blind peer review system in which authors and reviewers are anonymized to each other throughout the review process.
• A minimum of two independent reviewers, not belonging to the journal’s editorial staff, assess each manuscript for scientific quality, ethical standards, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

2. Stages in the review workflow

• Initial editorial screening: The Editor‑in‑Chief or an assigned Section Editor screens new submissions for scope, basic scientific soundness, adherence to author guidelines, and ethical compliance; manuscripts clearly out of scope or of insufficient quality may be rejected at this stage without external review.
• Plagiarism and integrity check: Before external review, submissions are checked for originality using plagiarism‑detection software and for compliance with the journal’s publication ethics and malpractice statement.
• External peer review: Suitable manuscripts are sent to at least two expert reviewers with relevant subject‑area expertise, selected from a diverse international pool to minimise endogeny and institutional concentration.

Timeline Overview

·         Submissions follow a structured 4-6week cycle from receipt to decision, ensuring timely feedback for typical single revision cycle, if further action needed it can extend further by 3-4 weeks.

Stage	Duration	Key Actions
Initial Screening	1-3 days	Editorial check for scope fit, ethics, and formatting.
Reviewer Assignment	3-7 days	Two independent experts invited; acceptance tracked in OJS.​
Review Period	14 days	Detailed feedback provided via OJS forms and annotated files.
Editor Decision	3-7 days	Synthesis of reviews; author notified with options (accept, revise, reject).​
Revisions & Final	7-14 days	Author resubmits; optional re-review if major changes needed.​

·         Publication follows acceptance and APC payment (if applicable), typically within 2 weeks.

3. Reviewer selection and responsibilities

• Reviewers are chosen based on demonstrated expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest, with preference for geographic and institutional diversity in line with indexing agencies expectations.
• Potential reviewers must declare any conflicts (e.g. recent collaboration, shared affiliation, personal relationships) and decline invitations where impartiality could be compromised.
• Reviewers are asked to provide constructive, evidence‑based reports that address originality, methodological rigour, clinical relevance to homoeopathic practice, ethical aspects, and clarity of presentation, together with a clear recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject).

4. Editorial decisions and timelines

• The handling editor considers all reviewer comments, may consult additional reviewers where necessary, and makes the final decision; reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not substitute editorial responsibility.
• Typical timelines for each decision stage (e.g. days from submission to first decision and from acceptance to online publication) are monitored and periodically reported on the journal website to support transparency and indexing requirements.
• Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or to new reviewers, depending on the extent of changes and the nature of previous concerns, before a final editorial decision is issued.

5. Special articles, ethics, and OJS implementation

• Special issues and guest‑edited sections follow the same peer review standards as regular issues; submissions by guest editors are handled independently by core editorial board members and must not exceed the proportion thresholds recommended for endogeny.
• All peer‑review policies, including the type of review, use of plagiarism checking, and any exceptions (such as non‑reviewed content types), are publicly described on the journal website in an English‑language, satisfying transparency criteria.
• In OJS, these procedures are operationalized through configured workflow settings (review type, reviewer guidelines, and optional review forms), ensuring that reviewers receive clear instructions and that every decision is recorded within the system.

 

Peer Review Process for The Homoeopathic Quill

The Homoeopathic Quill employs a rigorous, double-blind peer review system to uphold scholarly standards in homoeopathic research and education, fully aligning requirements for transparent quality control.

Core Principles

All non-editorial submissions undergo independent expert evaluation prior to publication. Reviewers remain anonymous to authors, and vice versa, with at least two external specialists assessing each manuscript. Plagiarism screening occurs via specialized tools before reviewer assignment.

This process applies uniformly to regular issues and any special collections on homoeopathic therapeutics or clinical applications.

Timeline Overview

Submissions follow a structured 4-6 week cycle from receipt to decision, ensuring timely feedback for typical single revision cycle, if further action needed it can extend further by 3-4 weeks.

Stage	Duration	Key Actions
Initial Screening	1-3 days	Editorial check for scope fit, ethics, and formatting.
Reviewer Assignment	3-5 days	Two independent experts invited; acceptance tracked in OJS.​
Review Period	14 days	Detailed feedback provided via OJS forms and annotated files.
Editor Decision	3-5 days	Synthesis of reviews; author notified with options (accept, revise, reject).​
Revisions & Final	7-14 days	Author resubmits; optional re-review if major changes needed.​

Publication follows acceptance and APC payment (if applicable), typically within 2 weeks.

Detailed Steps

1. Submission: Authors upload blinded manuscripts via OJS; editorials desk-reviewed separately.
2. Preliminary Assessment: Editor verifies alignment with journal scope (e.g., homoeopathic surgery, materia medica), completeness, and no conflicts. Desk rejection if unsuitable (~20% rate).ccgit.crown+1
3. Reviewer Selection: Experts from diverse institutions (non-editorial board) matched by expertise; at least 50% international for Scopus diversity.elsevier+1
4. Review Evaluation: Assessors rate novelty, methodology, homoeopathic relevance, ethics, and clarity using standardized OJS criteria. Recommendations: accept, minor/major revisions, or reject.[doaj]​
5. Decision Making: Editor integrates inputs; discrepancies resolved by third reviewer. Authors receive full reports without reviewer identities.
6. Post-Review: Revisions tracked in OJS; final acceptance includes plagiarism re-check and copy-editing.

Compliance Notes

This policy minimizes endogeny (<25% editor-authored papers) and mandates COPE ethics adherence, supporting DOAJ/Scopus indexing. Display on journal site: /about/submissions. Update OJS workflow settings to enforce double-blind mode.Memory+2