The scientific article reviewing process is an essential stage in the publication process. It helps the Editors-in-Chief make decisions on the publication of the article and the Author (s) – on the manuscript improvement.

The reviewers are both Members of Editorial Board and External reviewers who are invited by the Editorial Board to participate in the reviewing process, depending on their research interests.

Members of Editorial Office (Managing Editors, Technical Editors) don’t make decisions on papers.

The “Health Economics and Management Review” journal supports the double-blind peer review system.

This process has the following form:

1. A manuscript and a cover letter signed by all authors are submitted by the corresponding author to the Editorial office.
2. The Editor checks the paper meets the Journal’s requirements, aims and scope. If the manuscript does not comply with the abovementioned, then it should be rejected. The Editors have the right to reject papers during the pre-review phase; rejected manuscripts are not subject to additional review, and the author is not permitted to resubmit the article for consideration. Time for First Decision – up to 1 week.
3. The Editorial Board assign the reviewers according to their scientific interests. Journal “Health Economics and Management Review” has a system of double-blind peer review. It means that reviewers and authors remain anonymous.
4. Reviewers must accept all prerequisite terms and conditions to prevent conflicts of interest, certify to their subject-matter competence with respect to the paper’s topic, and specify precise criteria for reviewing. The choice is then made to accept or decline the invitation. If they agree, they should provide in time the Referee report with recommendations.
5. The reviewers send the suggestions/recommendations and indicate one of the following decisions (please see the Guidelines for reviewers):
   • Accept: to accept the article for publishing in its original form;
   • Minor revision: the article requires minor corrections, which are indicated in the review;
   • Major revision: a substantial review of the article content is needed; recommendations for material improvement are indicated in the review;
   • Reject: to reject the article on the basis stated in the review.

   The main criteria for articles selection include the authenticity of scientific ideas and proposals, the innovation of the scientific approach, significance of scientific results in its scientific field, the theoretical basis of the article, quality and completeness of the review of existing research and publications, clarity of the research methodology, literacy and adherence to editorial requirements (Journal aim and scope).

   There is a variety of reasons why the paper could be rejected. However, these can generally be categorized as content and editorial reasons.

   In most cases, content issues with the content prevent findings from being published until the author has completed additional work, such as additional experiments or analyses.

   There are several content reasons for rejection:

   • Data that is incomplete due to a limited sample size, missing data, or inadequate controls.
   • Poor analysis, such as the use of improper statistical tests or a complete lack of statistics.
   • Using a methodology that is inappropriate for answering hypothesis or an outdated approach that has been replaced by newer, more potent techniques that produce results that are more reliable.
   • Weak research motivation when your hypothesis is unclear or not based on science, or when your data does not address the research topic.
   • False conclusions drawn from the data that are not supported by assumptions.

   By spending enough time researching the field, choosing the issue to focus on, the hypothesis, and organizing a thorough experiment, these rejection reasons can be avoided.

   Editorial reasons for rejection:

   • Out of scope for the journal.
   • Plagiarism in the article (each article is checked for plagiarism using the company’s software StrikePlagiarism and iThenticate before being accepted for publication).
   • Violating or ignoring the publication ethics.
   • An improper structure or failure to adhere to the rules for journal formatting requirements.
   • The lack of information required for readers to comprehend and replicate the authors’ analyses and experiments.
   • Using outdated references; a high percentage of authors’ self-citations in the reference list.
   • Poor language quality of the paper that cannot be understood by readers.
   • Complicated logic or incorrectly provided data.
6. After reviewing, the Editorial Board looks over the Referee Reports and, in some circumstances, may ask for another reviewer to provide one more Referee Report.
7. The Editorial Board checks the reviewers’ suggestions/recommendations and sends to the Author(s). The final decision is made by the Editors-in-Chief.
8. Author(s) receive Referee Reports without being aware of the reviewers’ names. If there are any recommendations in the reviewing process to make certain corrections to the manuscript, the corresponding author should send the revised article along with the file “Response to reviewers’ comments” in which all experts’ comments should be answered. Authors may also disagree with an reviewers’ decision by offering own arguments and explanations. The opinions and suggestions expressed in the articles do not necessarily coincide with the point of view of the Editorial Board. Authors are responsible for the reliability of information in articles, the accuracy of names, statistical data, surnames, and quotes.
9. The revised manuscript approved by the reviewers is prepared for publication. If the manuscript is rejected, the author(s) is/are informed about this decision. Provided that the article has received positive reviews and permission for publication, all co-authors must sign the “Author’s agreement” to publish the revised version of the manuscript.