Smart: Journal of Public Health (SPubHealth) is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic excellence. To ensure the publication of robust, original, and high-quality research, all submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous double-blind peer-review process.

The workflow for evaluating manuscripts is structured as follows:

1. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)

Upon submission, the Managing Editor and/or Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript. This stage evaluates:

• Alignment with Focus and Scope: Does the topic fit within the journal’s defined subject areas?

• Originality and Plagiarism: Manuscripts are screened using similarity-checking software (e.g., Turnitin or iThenticate) to ensure originality.

• Adherence to Guidelines: Does the manuscript comply with the journal's formatting, word count, and stylistic requirements?

Manuscripts that are fundamentally flawed, severely lack originality, or fall outside the journal's scope will be given a Desk Rejection without being sent for external review.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent external reviewers. Reviewers are carefully selected based on their established academic expertise, publication record, and specialized knowledge relevant to the manuscript's subject matter. SPubHealth strictly avoids assigning reviewers who have a known conflict of interest with the authors or the research presented.

3. The Double-Blind Review

SPubHealth employs a strictly double-blind review process. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors throughout the evaluation. Reviewers are tasked with objectively evaluating the manuscript based on the following criteria:

• Originality and significance of the contribution to public health.

• Methodological rigor and validity of the study design.

• Clarity, coherence, and logical flow of the arguments.

• Appropriate use and interpretation of data.

• Relevance and timeliness of the literature reviewed.

• Compliance with ethical standards in research.

4. Editorial Decision

Once the independent reviewer reports are received, the Section Editor or Editor-in-Chief synthesizes the feedback and makes an editorial decision. Authors will receive a comprehensive decision letter along with the anonymized reviewer comments. The possible decisions are:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form (this is rare for initial submissions).

• Revisions Required (Minor or Major): The manuscript has strong potential but requires modifications. Authors are given a specific timeframe to address the reviewers' concerns. Major revisions may require a second round of peer review.

• Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication, lacks scientific validity, or the requested revisions were not adequately addressed.

5. The Revision Process

When submitting a revised manuscript, authors must provide a detailed "Response to Reviewers" document. This document must explicitly outline how and where each comment or suggestion from the reviewers was addressed in the revised text.

6. Final Decision Authority

The Editor-in-Chief holds the ultimate authority and responsibility for all publication decisions. Acceptance of a manuscript is based solely on its academic merit, validity, and relevance to the journal's readership.