The International Journal of Health Supplements (IJHS) applies an editorial review and scientific oversight framework designed for the publication of conference proceedings, abstract collections, and thematic supplements.

Review activities are commensurate with the nature of the submitted material. Not all content types are subject to external peer review.

• Conference proceedings and abstract collections are subject to editorial review and scientific oversight coordinated with the scientific committees of the originating events.
• Select content types, including invited review articles, consensus papers, methodological contributions, and educational materials within thematic supplements, may undergo external expert review at the discretion of the Editorial Office.

This framework is fully aligned with the Journal’s Guidelines for Authors.

Role of Reviewers

Reviewers contribute to the editorial process by providing expert, objective, and constructive assessments that support editorial decision-making.

Reviewers are expected to:

• evaluate submissions within their declared scientific and editorial context;
• assess clarity, relevance, methodological transparency (where applicable), and ethical compliance;
• provide feedback aimed at improving the quality and usability of the published material.

Reviewers do not act as gatekeepers for unsolicited standalone research submissions.

Nature of the Review Process

When external review is applied, IJHS uses a single-anonymized review process. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Reviewer comments are shared with authors in anonymized form.

Editorials, prefaces, meeting reports, and similar contextual materials may be reviewed and accepted at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief without external review.

Accepting a Review Invitation

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should confirm that:

• the topic falls within their area of expertise;
• they can complete the review within the agreed timeframe;
• no conflicts of interest exist.

Any potential conflicts must be disclosed to the Editorial Office.

Conducting the Review

Reviews must be conducted objectively, respectfully, and confidentially.

Reviewers should focus on:

• scientific relevance within the supplement or event context;
• clarity and organization of the content;
• transparency of methods or consensus processes (where applicable);
• appropriateness of conclusions and claims.

Minor language issues should not be a primary reason for rejection.

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should alert the Editorial Office to any ethical concerns, including suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, or undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Submitting the Review

Reviewers are invited to provide:

• comments for authors, aimed at improving clarity and completeness;
• confidential comments for editors, where appropriate.

Delays should be communicated promptly to the Editorial Office.

Editorial Decision

Final editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Editorial Office. Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not determine, editorial decisions.