Immortalis Journal of Health Law and Public Policy (IJHLPP) implements a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scientific contribution of all manuscripts considered for publication. Under this system, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process. All submitted manuscripts are subject to an initial editorial assessment and, if considered suitable, are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. The peer review process is conducted objectively, confidentially, and fairly, in accordance with internationally recognized scholarly publishing standards and publication ethics.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to assess its compliance with the journal's submission requirements, focus and scope, academic relevance, originality, and general scholarly quality. The editorial team also examines the manuscript for potential plagiarism, inappropriate publication practices, ethical concerns, and compliance with the journal's author guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements or fall outside its scope may be rejected at this stage without proceeding to external peer review. Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are forwarded to the peer review stage.

2. Reviewer Selection

The editorial team assigns at least two independent reviewers who possess appropriate academic qualifications, research experience, and subject-matter expertise relevant to the submitted manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their scholarly competence, publication record, and ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment. The journal seeks to ensure that reviewers have no financial, professional, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality. Additional reviewers may be appointed when necessary, particularly when the manuscript addresses interdisciplinary topics or when the initial reviewers provide substantially divergent recommendations.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

IJHLPP applies a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation process. Authors are required to remove identifying information from the main manuscript and ensure that the submitted files do not disclose their identities or institutional affiliations. Reviewers receive anonymized manuscripts and are expected to evaluate them independently without attempting to identify the authors. Likewise, authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers. This mechanism is intended to minimize potential bias and maintain fairness, independence, and academic objectivity in the evaluation process.

4. Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

1. Originality and Novelty: The extent to which the manuscript presents original ideas, findings, arguments, or perspectives that contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

2. Relevance and Scope: The relevance of the manuscript to health law, public policy, medical ethics, bioethics, public health governance, and the journal's overall focus and scope.

3. Theoretical and Conceptual Foundation: The appropriateness and adequacy of the theoretical framework, relevant literature, legal concepts, and conceptual arguments.

4. Methodological Rigor: The suitability, transparency, and consistency of the research design, methods, data collection, and analytical procedures.

5. Accuracy of Legal and Policy Analysis: The accuracy and relevance of legal provisions, regulations, judicial decisions, policy documents, and their interpretation within the applicable legal and institutional context.

6. Results and Discussion: The clarity, validity, depth, and significance of the research findings, arguments, and discussion.

7. Academic Contribution and Implications: The manuscript's contribution to scholarly development, legal practice, healthcare governance, and public policy formulation or implementation.

8. References and Academic Presentation: The adequacy, relevance, currency, and accuracy of references, citations, academic language, organization, and overall presentation.

5. Editorial Decision

Following the completion of the review process, the editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and determines the appropriate editorial decision. The possible decisions are:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without requiring substantial revisions.

• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or improvements before acceptance.

• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be subject to further evaluation by the reviewers.

• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or publication standards and is not considered suitable for publication.

The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the authorized handling editor. Reviewers provide recommendations, but their recommendations do not automatically determine the final publication decision. If reviewers provide conflicting assessments, the editor may seek an additional independent review before reaching a decision.

6. Revision and Resubmission

Authors whose manuscripts receive a revision decision are required to submit a revised version together with a detailed response to reviewers' comments. The response document must address each comment individually and clearly explain the revisions made or provide a reasoned justification when a particular recommendation is not adopted. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment, particularly when major revisions have been requested. Failure to submit revisions within the specified period, without prior communication or an approved extension, may result in the manuscript being considered withdrawn or closed by the editorial office.

7. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents and must not be disclosed, distributed, reproduced, or used for purposes unrelated to the review process. Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, academic, or professional advantage. Reviewers are also required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when their impartiality may be compromised. The editorial team is responsible for safeguarding manuscript confidentiality, maintaining the integrity of the review process, and addressing any suspected violations of publication ethics in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics policy.

8. Appeals and Complaints

Authors have the right to submit a formal appeal if they believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant factual error, a misunderstanding of the manuscript, an inappropriate review process, or an identifiable conflict of interest. Appeals must include a clear explanation and supporting evidence. The editorial team will evaluate appeals independently and may consult additional reviewers or an independent editorial representative when appropriate. The decision following an appeal will be communicated to the corresponding author and will generally be considered final.

9. Publication after Acceptance

Manuscripts that have successfully completed the peer review process and received final editorial acceptance proceed to copyediting, proofreading, layout preparation, and final publication procedures. Before publication, authors may be requested to verify the accuracy of the final proofs and confirm that all required revisions have been addressed. Acceptance of a manuscript does not exempt it from the journal's publication ethics requirements. Any significant ethical concerns identified before or after publication will be handled in accordance with the journal's established editorial and publication ethics policies.

10. Editorial Independence

The peer review process at IJHLPP is conducted independently of commercial, financial, institutional, or personal interests. No external party, including sponsors, advertisers, funding organizations, or institutional stakeholders, may influence reviewer assessments or editorial decisions. Editorial decisions are based solely on the manuscript's academic merit, originality, relevance, research integrity, and compliance with the journal's publication standards. The journal is committed to maintaining a transparent, fair, independent, and accountable peer review system that supports the advancement of high-quality scholarship in health law and public policy.

Commitment to Peer Review Integrity

Through this peer review framework, Immortalis Journal of Health Law and Public Policy (IJHLPP) is committed to ensuring that every published manuscript has undergone an appropriate, independent, and academically rigorous evaluation. The journal expects authors, reviewers, and editors to uphold the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, transparency, accountability, and academic integrity throughout the entire publication process.