About the Journal
Peer Review Process
HUMAN REVIEW features a rigorous peer-review process in order to guarantee the absolute scientific quality of the publications. The arbitration system is carried out through external reviewers and only original texts are accepted.
Peer review is double-blind, that is to say, the reviewers' indentities are not revealed to the author and viceversa. This way it is guaranteed that the reviewers do not have any conflict of interests.
As a rule, we send received papers to two reviewers. In case of doubts, we reserve the right to send it to a third reviewer, or as many additional reviewers as we may consider necessary to ensure the high quality of the publication.
To evaluate the articles, the reviewers will attend to 7 criteria that have been clearly defined by the journal. The reviewers will complete a form that will be sent (anonymously) to the authors. Each criterion scores from 0 to 5. Based on these scores (quantitative evaluation) and the comments and arguments of the reviewers (qualitative evaluation), the journal's editorial board decides whether to accept or reject the paper, whether to request a re-submission, or whether to suggest submission of the paper to another journal of Eagora Science.
Peer review double-blind is applied both to research articles and articles of the Special Issues.
HUMAN REVIEW is peer-reviewed and inspired by the Ethical Code of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The articles are published immediately. They are published on the website as soon as layout, tests and pagination’s stages finish.
There is two issue per year.