Review mode: double masked anonymous peer review process (manuscripts and peer review reports are anonymous to both the submitting authors and reviewers).

***All manuscripts undergo plagiarism detection with Turnitin’s online tool. This program generates a report highlighting text excerpts similar to existing content on the Internet and in its database. The editorial team interprets similarity reports and determines whether they are potentially harmful to publication ethics. COPE flowcharts are used for editorial decisions regarding plagiarism. The editorial team will contact the authors of the manuscript based on the outcome of the similarity check report.***

Process: Each manuscript is first examined by the Editor in Chief. If the paper meets the journal’s requirements, it is sent to review, that is, it is subjected to the critical review of at least two experts in the field.

When evaluating manuscripts, reviewers use standardized and recognized reporting guidelines, e.g., PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, SRQR for qualitative research studies, SPIRIT for research protocols (more reporting guidelines are available on the EQUATOR website).

We ask reviewers to provide constructive feedback and concrete suggested changes to help authors improve their manuscripts.

In addition to general and specific comments intended for the authors, the reviewers provide the editorial team with a general appreciation of the scope or potential impact of the manuscript for health research, practice, education or management: a) Very high impact, b) High impact, c) Moderate or low impact or d) Niche of interest/will not be cited.

At the end of their reports, the reviewers summarize their suggestion to the editorial team: a) Consider accepting this manuscript, b) Consider requesting revisions, c) Consider submitting again for review, d) Consider declining the submission, e) Other consideration - See Comments. The editorial decision considers this suggestion but is not dependent on it. 

Upon reviewing the evaluation reports, the editorial team will provide the authors with an initial decision: 1- Accept submission almost as is (editing changes), 2- minor revisions required, 3- major revisions required, 4- submission refused. Comments from reviewers will be provided with this initial decision as well as any other revisions or corrections requested by the editorial team, as appropriate.

The submission will be evaluated again following the reception of the edited manuscript from the authors and their detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments. At this stage, either the editorial process will continue, or the submission will be declined. This decision cannot be appealed.

Although the manuscript is accepted, adjustments in the presentation and editorial corrections are then requested by the editorial team to finalize the editing of the manuscript.

Throughout the process, the editorial team offers support to authors to improve the quality of their manuscript: written language, logic of the scientific presentation, clarity of tables and figures.

Here are precisely the steps, following the double-blind peer review, up to the publication stage, when the manuscript is accepted:

• Following the reception of the summary of the evaluation, authors submit an enhance version of their manuscript.
• Also, authors must describe, point by point in a two-column table (Reviewers’ comments and Responses to reviewers) the changes they made to the resubmitted manuscript. This document must be blinded and submitted as a separate file from the new version of the manuscript.
• To facilitate verification of the revisions made, all changes applied to the manuscript during the editorial process must be visible in track changes mode in Microsoft Word.
• When authors resubmit their manuscript after making the required changes, they restore the names of authors and affiliations. This file will not be seen by the reviewers but will be forwarded to the production team if the manuscript is accepted for publication.
• When a manuscript has been accepted for publication, after the journal proceeds with the final page layout of the article, authors are asked to do a final proofread of their article and to give their approval for publication within a given time limit. No significant changes will be allowed at this stage of the process.