An Idea Health Journal implement the review process policy as follows:

1. Authors are advised to have checked for plagiarism and are free of other copyright infringement before submitting.
2. Manuscripts submitted by the author will go through a review process by the editor, especially checking for conformity with the scope and template of the Journal. In this process, the editor will establish communication with the author so that the manuscript deserves to be sent to the reviewer or even returned/declined.
3. Manuscripts that have passed the steps above will be sent to 2 reviewers for their content to be reviewed using the double blind review method.
4. The review process will consider novelty, objectivity, methods, scientific impact, conclusions, and references.
5. The reviewer will suggest corrections and/or acceptance/rejection of the manuscript.
6. The editor will decide by considering suggestions from reviewers whether the manuscript meets the requirements Explore: Journal of Information Systems and Telematics (Telecommunication, Multimedia and Informatics)
7. The decision of the editor in chief is final.
8. The entire review process is carried out in full OJS web-based.

    

   Peer-review policy

   An Idea Health Journal  (IHJ) adheres to a double-blind reviewing policy in which the identity of both the reviewer and author are always concealed from both parties.  All submitted research articles and notes, review articles and analysis of management practice articles go through the standard IHJ peer-review process. Only original articles that have not been published or simultaneously submitted elsewhere are considered.

   The process involves:

   • Manuscript received and read by Editor IHJ;
   • Editor with the assistance of the Editorial Committee assigns at least two reviewers. All submitted articles are blind reviewed (i.e. the review process is independent). Reviewers are requested by the Editor to provide quick, specific and constructive feedback that identifies strengths and weaknesses of the article;
   • Upon receipt of reports from the Reviewers, the Editor provides feedback to the author(s) indicating the Reviewers’ recommendations as to whether it should be published in the journal and any suggested changes to improve its quality.

   Authorship

   Papers should only be submitted for consideration once all contributing authors give consent.  Criteria for authorship include substantial participation in the conception, design and execution of the work, the contribution of methodological expertise and the analysis and interpretation of the data. All listed authors should approve the final version of the paper, including the order in which multiple authors’ names will appear.

   Acknowledgments

   The Editor and editorial staff work to ensure that the journal supports and reflects ethical practice. This responsibility is shared with every author, reviewer, publisher and institution and in our guidelines for publication. We seek to protect the rights of our authors and we always investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published articles. Equally, we seek to protect the reputation of the journal against malpractice.

   Plagiarism

   Ethical problems that we are likely to encounter can be described as plagiarism, results included not being original to the purported author, allegations about authorship of contributions and double submission. Submitted articles may be checked with duplication-checking software. Therefore, the Editor and staff wish to work with our colleagues, the authors, reviewers and relevant organisations to maintain adherence to the code of conduct and work together in respecting and developing the b