Peer Review Policy

Digital Health & Telemonitoring Advances (DHTA) follows a rigorous, transparent, confidential, and independent peer-review process to support the scientific quality, originality, reliability, methodological soundness, and ethical integrity of published research.

The journal considers peer review an essential component of scholarly communication and uses the process to support objective evaluation and improvement of submitted manuscripts.

All manuscripts are initially assessed by the editorial team. Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are sent for independent peer review before a final publication decision is made.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All manuscripts submitted to Digital Health & Telemonitoring Advances (DHTA) undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their suitability for the journal.

The initial assessment may consider:

  • Alignment with the journal's aims and scope.

  • Originality and potential scholarly contribution.

  • Research quality and methodological appropriateness.

  • Ethical compliance.

  • Completeness of the submission.

  • Compliance with author guidelines.

  • Potential plagiarism or inappropriate text overlap.

  • Relevant conflicts of interest.

  • General quality of presentation and academic writing.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, do not meet minimum scholarly or ethical standards, or fail to comply substantially with submission requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

2. Peer Review Model

DHTA follows a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer-review model.

Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the peer-review process as far as reasonably practicable.

The purpose of double-anonymous review is to:

  • Reduce potential bias.

  • Support fair and objective evaluation.

  • Encourage independent reviewer judgment.

  • Ensure that editorial decisions are primarily based on scholarly merit.

Authors should remove identifying information from the anonymized manuscript where required.

Complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed because author identity may sometimes be inferred from preprints, conference presentations, datasets, highly specialized research topics, or other publicly available information.

3. Number of Reviewers

Research manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers, provided that this reflects the journal's actual editorial practice.

An additional reviewer may be invited where:

  • Reviewer recommendations differ substantially.

  • Additional methodological or statistical expertise is required.

  • A specialized scientific, technical, or ethical issue requires further assessment.

  • The responsible editor considers another independent opinion necessary.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the editorial decision.

4. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, research experience, methodological knowledge, and relevance to the manuscript.

The editorial team considers:

  • Expertise related to the manuscript topic.

  • Relevant academic or professional experience.

  • Ability to provide an independent and evidence-based assessment.

  • Previous reviewing experience, where appropriate.

  • Potential conflicts of interest.

Reviewers should not be selected where personal, professional, institutional, financial, supervisory, collaborative, or other relationships could reasonably compromise impartiality.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide fair, constructive, independent, professional, and confidential assessments.

Reviewers should:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively.

  • Assess research design, methodology, analysis, interpretation, originality, relevance, and presentation.

  • Identify important strengths and limitations.

  • Identify unsupported claims or methodological concerns.

  • Raise relevant ethical concerns.

  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, image manipulation, inappropriate authorship, or other potential misconduct.

  • Maintain manuscript confidentiality.

  • Avoid using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, academic, or commercial advantage.

  • Declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

  • Complete reviews within the agreed review period where reasonably possible.

Reviewers should avoid inappropriate requests for citations that are not relevant to improving the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

6. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any competing interests that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, independent judgment.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • Recent or ongoing collaboration with an author.

  • Employment at the same institution.

  • Personal relationships.

  • Supervisory or mentoring relationships.

  • Significant academic competition.

  • Financial or commercial interests.

  • Intellectual-property interests.

  • Strong personal or professional disputes.

A reviewer with a significant conflict should decline the review invitation.

An editor must recuse themselves from handling a manuscript where a competing interest could compromise impartiality. The manuscript should then be reassigned to another qualified editor.

7. Author-Suggested Reviewers

Where the submission system permits, authors may suggest potential reviewers.

Author-suggested reviewers are not automatically invited.

The editorial team independently evaluates suggested reviewers for:

  • Subject expertise.

  • Institutional affiliation.

  • Identity.

  • Independence.

  • Potential conflicts of interest.

Authors should not suggest:

  • Close collaborators.

  • Current colleagues from the same institution.

  • Recent supervisors or students.

  • Individuals with significant personal or financial relationships.

  • Individuals whose involvement could reasonably compromise independent review.

The journal retains full discretion in reviewer selection.

8. Reviewer Exclusion Requests

Authors may request that specific individuals not be invited as reviewers where a legitimate conflict or other reasonable concern exists.

Such requests should include a brief explanation.

The editorial team will consider exclusion requests but is not required to accept them where doing so would interfere with editorial independence or access to appropriate expertise.

9. Review Criteria

Reviewers may evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and significance of the research.

  • Relevance to digital health, telemonitoring, healthcare technology, or related disciplines.

  • Appropriateness of research design and methodology.

  • Quality and transparency of data analysis.

  • Accuracy and appropriateness of interpretation.

  • Clarity and organization of the manuscript.

  • Ethical compliance.

  • Adequacy of reporting.

  • Relevance and balance of references.

  • Contribution to existing knowledge.

10. Editorial Decisions

After considering reviewer reports and the overall editorial assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

  • Accept.

  • Minor revision.

  • Major revision.

  • Reject.

  • Additional review, where further expert assessment is required.

Authors receiving a revision decision should submit:

  • A revised manuscript.

  • A point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.

  • A clear description of changes made.

  • A reasoned explanation where a recommendation has not been followed.

The handling editor evaluates the peer-review reports and makes an editorial recommendation.

The Editor-in-Chief or another formally authorized senior editor has responsibility for the final publication decision, in accordance with the journal's editorial governance structure.

11. Revision and Re-Review

Revised manuscripts may be:

  • Evaluated by the handling editor.

  • Returned to the original reviewers.

  • Sent to additional reviewers where necessary.

Major revisions may undergo further external peer review where the nature of the changes requires additional expert evaluation.

12. Handling Reviewer Disagreements

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the journal does not determine the outcome by simple majority vote.

The responsible editor may:

  • Evaluate the reasoning in each report.

  • Request clarification from reviewers.

  • Invite an additional independent reviewer.

  • Seek specialized methodological or statistical advice.

  • Conduct further editorial assessment.

The final decision is based on the overall scholarly, methodological, and ethical evaluation of the manuscript.

13. Special Issues and Guest-Edited Content

Manuscripts submitted to special issues, themed collections, or guest-edited sections are subject to the same standards of editorial assessment, research integrity, and independent peer review as regular submissions.

Guest editors must disclose competing interests.

A guest editor must not handle a manuscript where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

Where a conflict exists, the manuscript should be reassigned to an independent editor.

The Editor-in-Chief or another authorized senior editor retains oversight of special-issue editorial processes and may intervene where necessary to protect editorial independence and publication integrity.

14. Editors and Editorial Board Members as Authors

Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, or individuals closely associated with DHTA must not receive preferential treatment.

Such manuscripts should be handled independently by an editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.

The submitting editor or board member must not:

  • Select reviewers.

  • Access confidential reviewer identities where this would compromise independence.

  • Participate in the editorial decision concerning their own manuscript.

15. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and related unpublished information are treated as confidential.

Editors, reviewers, and journal staff must not:

  • Share manuscript content with unauthorized individuals.

  • Disclose confidential editorial information.

  • Use unpublished information for personal or professional benefit.

Confidential material may be disclosed only where required for a legitimate ethical investigation, legal obligation, or other authorized editorial purpose.

16. Ethical Concerns During Review

If reviewers or editors identify potential concerns involving:

  • Plagiarism.

  • Duplicate or redundant publication.

  • Fabricated or falsified data.

  • Image manipulation.

  • Inappropriate authorship.

  • Missing or questionable ethical approval.

  • Patient or participant consent.

  • Citation manipulation.

  • Peer-review manipulation.

  • Other research misconduct.

the normal peer-review process may be paused while the concern is assessed.

Appropriate actions may include:

  • Requesting clarification or supporting documentation.

  • Further editorial assessment.

  • Consultation with relevant experts.

  • Contacting an institution, ethics committee, or other appropriate body where justified.

  • Rejection of the manuscript.

  • Appropriate post-publication action where a concern relates to already published material.

Such cases are handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and related policies.

17. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers and editors are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.

Confidential manuscript content should not be uploaded to external generative AI systems where doing so could compromise:

  • Confidentiality.

  • Intellectual property.

  • Participant privacy.

  • Data protection.

  • Editorial independence.

AI-assisted tools must not replace independent reviewer or editorial judgment.

Any permitted use of AI tools must comply with the journal's applicable AI policy.

18. Appeals

Authors who believe that a significant factual, procedural, or ethical error affected an editorial decision may submit an appeal in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

Appeals should provide clear reasons and relevant supporting information.

An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance of the manuscript.

19. Peer Review Transparency and Consistency

DHTA is committed to maintaining a transparent and consistent peer-review process.

Information regarding the journal's:

  • Peer-review model.

  • Reviewer selection.

  • Number of reviewers.

  • Reviewer responsibilities.

  • Conflict-of-interest procedures.

  • Author-suggested reviewers.

  • Special-issue review.

  • Editorial decision authority.

  • Appeals process.

should remain consistent across the Peer Review Policy, Editorial Process, Author Guidelines, submission system, and other relevant journal pages.

20. Commitment to Fair and Independent Review

Digital Health & Telemonitoring Advances (DHTA) is committed to maintaining a fair, rigorous, independent, confidential, and transparent peer-review system.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, methodological quality, ethical acceptability, relevance to the journal, and the overall evidence provided through independent peer review and editorial assessment.