1. Initial Screening (Desk Review)

Upon submission, the Editorial Team conducts a preliminary assessment to determine whether the manuscript is appropriate for the journal's Focus and Scope. The editorial screening considers the manuscript's relevance to hospital management, healthcare administration, healthcare service management, healthcare quality and patient safety, hospital financial management, human resource management, health information systems and technology, healthcare policy, hospital governance, and related areas. At this stage, the journal also verifies compliance with the Author Guidelines, manuscript structure and completeness, basic academic and ethical requirements, and conducts a similarity screening. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope or do not meet the minimum editorial, academic, and ethical requirements may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.

2. Peer Review Stage

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two (2) independent expert reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject and methodology of the manuscript. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to several core criteria:

• Originality and significance of the research and its contribution to hospital management and healthcare administration.
• Scientific and methodological soundness, including the appropriateness of the research design, methods, sampling, data collection, and analysis.
• Validity, reliability, and adequacy of data supporting the research findings and conclusions.
• Clarity, coherence, and logical presentation of the manuscript, including the consistency between objectives, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions.
• Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope, particularly in the areas of hospital management, healthcare administration, quality and patient safety, healthcare finance, human resources, health information systems, healthcare policy, and hospital governance.
• Practical and theoretical contribution to improving healthcare services, organizational efficiency, hospital performance, patient safety, healthcare policy, or sustainable health system development.
• Ethical and academic integrity, including appropriate ethical considerations, responsible reporting of research, proper citation, and avoidance of plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct.

3. Revision and Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' detailed comments, recommendations, and overall assessment, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Handling Editor makes the editorial decision. The possible outcomes are:

• Accepted: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication and proceeds to the production stage.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions to address specific comments or improve clarity, presentation, or completeness. The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the Editor or returned to the reviewers when necessary.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions related to methodology, data analysis, interpretation, theoretical framework, presentation, or other important aspects. The revised manuscript may undergo another round of peer review.
• Rejected: The manuscript is considered unsuitable for publication based on insufficient scientific quality, methodological limitations, ethical concerns, lack of originality, inadequate contribution, or lack of relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.

4. Final Approval and Production

Once a manuscript is formally accepted, it proceeds to the copyediting, layout formatting, and proofreading stages. The corresponding author may be asked to review the final proof and confirm the accuracy of the article before publication. Following completion of the production process, the final article will be published online as part of the journal's scheduled publication issue.