The practice of peer review is to ensure that a high-quality manuscript is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out in all reputable scientific journals. Our referees, therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of JHCD.

All manuscripts submitted for publication are subjected to a double-blind peer review process, where the identities of both reviewers and authors remain undisclosed. Generally, a minimum of two external reviewers evaluate each submitted manuscript, with the possibility of seeking additional opinions if deemed necessary. Reviewers are required to adhere to JHCD's Publication Ethics & Malpractice guidelines, along with the referenced documents, and are advised to familiarize themselves with COPE's ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Administrators of the peer review process should be vigilant for indications of misconduct and promptly communicate any concerns to the editorial office.

 

Peer Review Process
The Journal of Human Capital Development (JHCD) employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality and integrity of published research. The editorial workflow is structured as follows:

1. Initial Screening by Assistant Editor-in-Chief
   All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the Assistant Editor-in-Chief to verify compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines, formatting requirements, and ethical policies. Submissions that do not meet these criteria may be returned to the authors for revision prior to formal review.
2. Assignment by Editor-in-Chief
   Upon passing the initial screening, manuscripts are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief to determine their relevance to the journal’s aims and scope. The Editor-in-Chief then assigns qualified reviewers, typically two or more external experts, who specialize in the manuscript’s subject area.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review
   Reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, methodological rigor, clarity, and contribution to the field of human capital development. The identity of both authors and reviewers is kept confidential throughout the process to maintain impartiality.
4. Language and Technical Review
   Concurrently or after peer review, the Language Editor may conduct a linguistic review to ensure clarity, grammar, and consistency, particularly for manuscripts recommended for acceptance.
5. Decision Making
   Based on the feedback received from reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision, which may be:
   • • Accept
     • Minor Revision
     • Major Revision
     • Reject

Competing interests

Should reviewers become aware of any competing interests that could potentially influence their review report, they are urged to promptly inform the editors and abstain from further review. Competing interests arise when outside factors, such as financial ties, intellectual affiliations, personal relationships, or competitive situations may influence professional judgments. To uphold standards of objectivity and trustworthiness, reviewers are requested to disclose any potential competing interests.

Confidentiality

Reviewers and editors must maintain confidentiality regarding submission content, including abstracts, ideas, and research data. Such information should not be disclosed to third parties or utilized for personal purposes. Authors and reviewers are reminded to exercise caution during the double-blind peer-review process to avoid revealing their identities.

Timeliness

We request reviewers to submit their review reports promptly to ensure a smooth publication process for all involved. In the event that reviewers are unable to meet the deadline, we encourage them to promptly notify the editorial office and request an extension.

 

It is important to note that the journal may take up to approximately 4 months to process the review, acknowledgement and publication of the manuscript submitted by the authors. In some cases, longer times may be unavoidable depending on feedback from reviewers, author response times to revisions, and the number of revisions.