All manuscripts are initially received by the Editor-in-Chief, who conducts or delegates an initial assessment to determine whether the submission meets the journal's basic requirements. This screening examines the manuscript's relevance to the journal's aims and scope, compliance with the author guidelines and manuscript template, clarity of presentation, originality, and adherence to applicable research and publication ethics requirements.

The editorial team may use appropriate similarity-checking tools and other screening procedures to identify potential concerns regarding plagiarism, redundant publication, authorship, research ethics, or other forms of publication misconduct.

Following the initial screening, the manuscript may be:

• Sent for peer review: The manuscript meets the basic editorial requirements and is considered suitable for further scientific evaluation.

• Returned for technical correction: The author is requested to address deficiencies in formatting, documentation, completeness, or other submission requirements before further consideration.

• Rejected at the editorial screening stage (desk rejection): The manuscript falls outside the journal's scope, fails to meet essential scholarly or ethical requirements, or is otherwise unsuitable for peer review.

Passing the initial screening does not guarantee acceptance for publication.

2. Assignment of a Handling Editor and Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a Handling Editor by the Editor-in-Chief. The Handling Editor oversees the peer review process, identifies qualified reviewers, evaluates the submitted reports, and provides an editorial recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief or the editor authorized to make the final decision.

Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area and research methods of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, relevant scholarly experience, and ability to provide an impartial assessment. They should not have conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of their evaluations. Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, declare any potential conflicts of interest, and provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments within the requested timeframe.

3. Double-Anonymized Peer Review

JHM employs a double-anonymized peer review model, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process, to the extent reasonably possible.

Authors must submit an anonymized manuscript that excludes names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgements, and other information that could directly identify the authors. Author-identifying information should be provided separately where required by the submission system. Authors should also ensure that document properties and supplementary files do not inadvertently disclose their identities.

Reviewers receive the anonymized manuscript and are asked to evaluate it against the journal's scholarly and editorial criteria. Their assessments should address, as applicable:

1. Originality and novelty: The extent to which the manuscript presents original ideas, findings, analyses, or interpretations and establishes its contribution relative to existing literature.

2. Relevance and significance: The importance of the research question and its alignment with the journal's aims and scope.

3. Theoretical and conceptual grounding: The adequacy of the theoretical framework, engagement with relevant literature, and articulation of the research problem and knowledge gap.

4. Methodological rigour: The appropriateness, transparency, and adequacy of the research design, data collection procedures, analytical methods, and reporting practices.

5. Validity of findings and interpretation: The extent to which the results are supported by the evidence, the analysis is appropriate, and the conclusions follow from the findings.

6. Clarity and organization: The coherence of the argument, quality of academic writing, organization of the manuscript, and appropriate presentation of tables, figures, and other materials.

7. Research integrity and ethical compliance: The adequacy of relevant ethical considerations, transparency of reporting, and responsible treatment of data, participants, sources, and scholarly contributions.

Reviewers provide a written report containing a reasoned evaluation of the manuscript, specific comments for improvement, and a recommendation regarding its publication. Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not determine, the editorial decision.

4. Editorial Decision 

After considering the reviewers' reports, the Handling Editor's assessment, and the journal's editorial standards, the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor makes the editorial decision. The decision may be one of the following:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision, subject to any necessary production-stage corrections.

• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not substantially alter its principal arguments, methods, or findings.

• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions to address significant concerns regarding its theoretical grounding, methodology, analysis, interpretation, presentation, or contribution.

• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards or has fundamental limitations that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision within the journal's editorial process.

The editorial decision and the relevant reviewer comments are communicated to the corresponding author. The editor may provide additional guidance to clarify the required revisions.

5. Revision and Re-evaluation

When a revision is requested, the corresponding author must submit a revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the journal. The submission should include a point-by-point response to the reviewers' and editor's comments, explaining how each concern has been addressed or providing a reasoned justification when a suggested change has not been adopted.

Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the Handling Editor to determine whether the requested changes have been adequately addressed. Where necessary, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers for further evaluation. More than one round of revision may be required.

A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance. If the revised manuscript fails to address essential concerns adequately, the editor may request further revision or reject the manuscript.

6. Final Acceptance and Publication

A manuscript is accepted only when the responsible editor determines that it meets the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements. Once acceptance has been formally confirmed, JHM issues an electronic Letter of Acceptance (e-LOA) in accordance with the journal's administrative procedures.

The accepted manuscript then proceeds to the production stage, which may include copyediting, typesetting, author proofreading, reference and metadata verification, DOI registration, and preparation for online publication. Authors are responsible for reviewing the proofs and communicating any necessary corrections within the specified timeframe.

The article is published on the official JHM website after the required production procedures have been completed. Publication dates and other relevant article metadata are recorded and displayed in accordance with the journal's publication practices.

7. Confidentiality, Impartiality, and Editorial Independence

All participants in the peer review process must respect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and review reports. Manuscripts and their contents must not be used for personal, professional, or competitive advantage before publication. Reviewers must not share or distribute manuscript materials without appropriate authorization.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance, research quality, and compliance with publication ethics. Decisions must not be influenced by authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, personal characteristics, or other considerations unrelated to the scientific quality of the submission.

Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and refrain from participating in evaluations where such conflicts could compromise impartiality. Any concerns about research misconduct or breaches of publication ethics will be handled in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies and applicable guidance from recognized scholarly publishing organizations.

JHM aims to conduct its peer review process fairly, consistently, and transparently. The journal does not guarantee acceptance of any submission, and publication is conditional upon a favourable editorial assessment and fulfilment of all applicable requirements.