Peer Review Process

SYNAPSE – Journal of Healthcare Innovation & Future Technologies strives to maintain the highest levels of academic excellence through a peer-review process that is fair, unbiased, and transparent. All manuscripts submitted to SYNAPSE are evaluated based on originality, relevance, validity, and scientific quality by the Editor(s) and reviewers.

SYNAPSE uses a double-blind peer-review procedure, which means that the identities of both reviewers and authors are unknown to each other during the review process. This approach helps promote an unbiased and objective evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Editorial Screening and Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript first undergoes an editorial screening to assess its relevance to the journal's scope, completeness, ethical requirements, originality, and basic scientific quality. The initial screening is targeted to be completed within 7 days.

Manuscripts that are selected by the editor are assigned to appropriate independent reviewers according to the expertise required for the manuscript topic. Reviewer selection considers subject expertise, independence, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

In general, the journal seeks reviews from at least two independent subject experts for Original Research Articles, Review Articles, Systematic Reviews/Meta-analyses, Short Communications, and Case Reports.

Objectives of Peer Review

The peer-review process aims to:

Maintain high academic standards.
Promote research integrity and publication ethics.
Evaluate the originality and significance of the research.
Assess the quality and appropriateness of the research methodology.
Improve the quality and clarity of manuscripts.
Provide constructive feedback to authors.
Support fair and objective editorial decisions.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

Originality and novelty of the research.
Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
Quality and relevance of the literature review.
Clarity and strength of the research objectives and arguments.
Appropriateness of the research methodology.
Accuracy of data analysis, interpretation, and findings.
Organization and quality of writing.
Ethical compliance.
Overall scientific contribution and relevance to healthcare innovation and future technologies.

Review Timeline

Stage	Expected Timeline
Initial editorial screening	Within 7 days
First editorial decision	Within 4 weeks after successful screening
Minor revision	14 days
Major revision	30 days
Final decision after satisfactory revision	Within 14 days

Extensions may be granted for revisions upon a justified request.

Editorial Decisions

After considering the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor may make one of the following decisions:

Accept without revision.
Accept with minor revisions.
Revise and resubmit after major revisions.
Reject the manuscript.

Authors receiving a revision request should carefully consider the reviewers' comments and submit the revised manuscript within the specified timeframe.

The final decision is based on the scholarly value, originality, relevance, methodological quality, and reviewer recommendations.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must be independent and must not have any conflict of interest that could influence their assessment.

Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest, under the oversight of the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision within 30 days of receiving the decision letter.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent senior editor or editorial board member who was not responsible for the original decision.

The decision on the appeal is final.

Confidentiality and Editorial Integrity

Throughout the review process, SYNAPSE follows the principles of confidentiality, fairness, editorial independence, transparency, and scholarly integrity.