Peer Review Process

Salus Juris: Journal of Health Law & Bioethics is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity, academic quality, and publication ethics. To ensure the quality and relevance of published research, every submitted manuscript undergoes a rigorous, systematic, and transparent evaluation process.

Review Policy

Salus Juris utilizes a Double-Blind Peer Review system for manuscript evaluation. The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential during the review process to support objective, independent, and unbiased assessment. Manuscripts are evaluated by qualified reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject matter and methodological approach of the submitted work. The journal is committed to maintaining confidentiality, fairness, academic independence, and transparency throughout the editorial and peer-review process.

The journey of a manuscript from submission to publication involves the following steps:

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 health law, bioethics, healthcare governance, healthcare systems, public health, pharmaceutical and medical device regulation, digital health, healthcare financing, healthcare risk management, or patient rights and health consumer protection. At this stage, the journal also verifies compliance with the Author Guidelines, basic academic and ethical requirements, manuscript completeness, and conducts a similarity screening. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope or do not meet the minimum editorial 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 of the manuscript. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to several core criteria:

  • Originality and significance of the research contribution.
  • Scientific and methodological soundness of the research.
  • Quality, validity, and adequacy of data or legal/ethical analysis.
  • Clarity, coherence, and logical presentation of the manuscript.
  • Relevance to health law, bioethics, healthcare governance, or healthcare systems, as applicable.
  • Contribution to scholarly knowledge and potential implications for healthcare practice, policy, regulation, or society.

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.
  • Revisions Required (Minor or Major): The authors are required to revise and improve the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments. The revised manuscript may undergo another round of review when necessary.
  • Rejected: The manuscript is considered unsuitable for publication based on its scientific quality, methodological limitations, ethical concerns, lack of relevance to the journal's scope, or other editorial considerations.

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.