1. Review Model

JHCR follows a double-blind peer review process. The identities of reviewers are kept confidential from authors, and author identity is handled according to the journal’s review workflow to support fairness and objectivity.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editorial Board. This screening determines whether the manuscript is suitable for peer review.

• Alignment with the aims and scope of JHCR
• Relevance to human-centered artificial intelligence and digital innovation
• Originality and scholarly contribution
• Basic technical and methodological quality
• Compliance with ethical and publication requirements
• Similarity and plagiarism screening

Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum quality standards or fall outside the journal’s scope may be rejected at the initial screening stage.

3. Peer Review Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their subject knowledge, academic experience, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest.

4. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts using scholarly and constructive criteria, including:

• Originality and novelty of the research
• Relevance to human-centered research and digital technologies
• Clarity of research problem and objectives
• Soundness of methodology
• Quality of data analysis and interpretation
• Ethical consideration and responsible use of technology
• Human-centered value and societal contribution
• Quality of writing, structure, and presentation
• Appropriateness of references and literature review

5. Review Timeline

JHCR aims to complete the review process within a reasonable timeline. The journal normally expects reviewer reports to be completed within approximately four weeks, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and editorial workflow.

6. Possible Editorial Decisions

7. Revision and Re-evaluation

Authors are expected to respond to reviewer and editor comments in a clear and respectful manner. Revised manuscripts should include a detailed response explaining how each comment has been addressed. Major revisions may be sent back to reviewers for further evaluation.

8. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript.
• Provide objective, constructive, and scholarly feedback.
• Disclose conflicts of interest.
• Avoid personal criticism of authors.
• Identify relevant literature that has not been cited.
• Report suspected ethical issues, plagiarism, or duplicate publication.

9. Final Decision Authority

The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board. Decisions are based on reviewer reports, editorial judgment, journal scope, academic quality, ethical compliance, and the journal’s publication priorities.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that a decision was made due to a factual error may submit an appeal to the Editorial Office. Appeals will be reviewed by the Editorial Board, and the final decision will be communicated to the author.

Email: managerofjhcr@jhcr.net