Peer Review Process

Internal Review (Preliminary Editorial Assessment)

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board of the scientific journal «Environment & Health» undergo an initial editorial review. At this stage, the responsible editor assesses whether the material aligns with the journal’s scientific profile, its subject matter, and established editorial requirements.

Materials that do not align with the journal’s focus areas or do not comply with editorial policy are not forwarded for further review.

Certain categories of publications, including editorial letters, informational notices, and notices of corrections or retractions, are not subject to the peer review process.

If a manuscript does not meet technical requirements (structure, formatting, completeness of data), the editorial board sends the authors comments requesting corrections. If the authors do not submit a revised version or do not respond within 10 calendar days, the manuscript is automatically excluded from the editorial process.

Each submitted manuscript is checked for text similarities using specialized academic integrity monitoring systems.

If significant borrowings without proper citation are detected, the manuscript is returned to the authors for correction. If signs of plagiarism or other violations of academic ethics are found, the manuscript is rejected without the possibility of resubmission.

Manuscripts that have successfully passed the initial screening and checks are forwarded to the next stage – independent external peer review.

External Peer Review (Expert Evaluation)

Manuscripts that have successfully passed the preliminary editorial screening are forwarded for independent external peer review.

The journal «Environment & Health» employs a double-blind review procedure, in which neither the authors nor the reviewers have information about each other’s identities. This ensures the objectivity, impartiality, and independence of the evaluation.

Reviewers are experts with scientific qualifications and research experience in the relevant fields. Reviewers are selected based on the manuscript’s subject matter and the absence of conflicts of interest.

The following aspects are evaluated during the review process:

• the scientific novelty and relevance of the research;
• the validity of the methods and the reliability of the results obtained;
• the logical presentation of the material;
• the consistency of the conclusions with the stated objectives;
• compliance with ethical norms and standards of scientific publications. 

Based on the results of the review, the reviewer provides one of the following conclusions:

• recommend for publication;
• recommend for publication after revision;
• reject the manuscript.

The reviewers’ comments and recommendations are forwarded to the authors for consideration. If necessary, the manuscript may be sent for re-review.

The final decision on the publication of the article is made by the editorial board based on the received reviews.

The duration of the review process depends on the complexity of the subject matter and can take an average of 2 to 4 weeks.