The Ethiopian Journal of Health and Biomedical Sciences (EJHBS) employs a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process. This ensures that the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation, fostering an environment of objective and impartial scientific critique.

1. Initial Editorial Triage (Desk Review)

Within one week of submission, a Section or an Associate Editor evaluates the manuscript for:

• Technical Compliance: Adherence to "Instructions for Authors" and formatting.
• Scope & Relevance: Alignment with the journal’s aims and the needs of the global health community.
• Plagiarism Screening: Verification via a similarity index (15% threshold).
• Scientific & Ethical Integrity: Assessment of the research question, methodology, and IRB approvals.

The Editor may decide to: (1) Accept for peer review, (2) Return for technical revision, or (3) Reject if the manuscript lacks scientific merit or exceeds the similarity threshold.

2. Independent Expert Evaluation

Once a manuscript passes triage, the Editor identifies at least two independent reviewers with documented expertise in the relevant field.

• Conflict of Interest Mitigation: EJHBS implements an Institutional Neutrality Protocol (Firewall). Manuscripts submitted by authors from the University of Gondar are managed by external editors and reviewed by experts outside the host institution to prevent institutional bias.
• Timeline: Reviewers have one week to accept the invitation and two weeks to return their formal report.

3. Reviewer Criteria & Recommendations

Reviewers assess the work using a standardized rubric focusing on originality, validity, significance, and ethical acceptability. They provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept without revision: The work meets all scholarly standards.
• Accept with minor revision: Requires small changes to text or data presentation.
• Accept with major revision: Requires significant additional data, analysis, or rewriting.
• Reject: The work is scientifically flawed or lacks sufficient novelty.

4. Revision and Re-evaluation

Major Revisions: Authors have a maximum of four weeks to provide a point-by-point response and a revised manuscript. These are typically sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation.

Minor Revisions: The Editorial Office verifies the changes. If the response is satisfactory, the manuscript is accepted without further external review.

5. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision to publish rests with the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers' recommendations and the Associate Editor's synthesis. The journal prioritizes studies with scientifically sound research questions and rigorous methods over perceived "impact" or "interest" to ensure the scientific record remains reliable and replicable.