Peer review in all its forms plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and quality of the scholarly record. Journal of Happiness and Health employs a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the publication of high-quality scientific research.

In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review procedure. Authors must submit a fully anonymized manuscript with no identifying information in the text or on the title page. Self-identifying citations should be avoided. A separate title page must include the manuscript title, all author names, affiliations, corresponding author details, and any acknowledgments, disclosures, or funding information.

Editorial Screening and Assignment

All submissions undergo an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief in terms of scope, originality, methodological rigor, and compliance with the journal’s ethical and formatting standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk-rejected at this stage.

For manuscripts deemed suitable for peer review, an Associate Editor is assigned to manage the editorial process. The Associate Editor serves as the handling editor and oversees the peer review process.

Reviewer Selection and Evaluation Process

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their scholarly competence, research background, and alignment with the manuscript topic.

The Associate Editor identifies and invites reviewers, drawing from the journal’s reviewer pool or external experts. Reviewer selection is conducted in accordance with principles of objectivity, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and must not share or use any information obtained during the review process.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Originality and scientific contribution

• Relevance and adequacy of the literature review

• Methodological rigor (design, sampling, validity, reliability, analysis)

• Clarity and accuracy of findings

• Quality of discussion and interpretation

• Ethical standards and compliance

• Academic writing quality and adherence to APA 7 guidelines

Detailed evaluation includes:

• Introduction and Literature: clarity, significance, and originality

• Method: appropriateness and rigor

• Findings: clarity and consistency

• Discussion: interpretation and implications

• Conclusion: contribution and future directions

• Language and Style: clarity and technical accuracy

Decision-Making Process

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Associate Editor provides a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject). The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision, taking into account all reviewer comments and the editorial evaluation.

Following the peer review process, one of the following editorial decisions is made:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further revision and proceeds to copyediting and proofreading.

• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor changes. Authors are expected to submit a revised version within 1 month. Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the handling Associate Editor and typically do not require further external review.

• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions. Authors are expected to revise and resubmit their manuscript within 1 month. Revised manuscripts are generally sent back to the original reviewers (or, if necessary, new reviewers) for further evaluation.

• Reject: The manuscript is declined due to insufficient scientific quality, lack of originality, or mismatch with the journal’s scope. Rejected manuscripts are not reconsidered.

If authors require additional time for revision, they are expected to inform the editorial office in advance. Extension requests are evaluated at the discretion of the Editor.

The journal adheres to strict principles of confidentiality, impartiality, and transparency. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and author identities are not disclosed to reviewers. All participants in the review process must declare any potential conflicts of interest.

Revision and Final Evaluation

Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in line with reviewer and editorial comments. Revised manuscripts may be sent for further review when necessary.

All accepted manuscripts are subject to plagiarism screening using appropriate software. Final acceptance is contingent upon satisfactory similarity reports and full compliance with publication ethics.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals should be submitted via the journal’s official contact within one month of the decision notification.

An appeal must include:

• A clear justification for the appeal

• A detailed, point-by-point response to reviewer comments

• Supporting evidence where applicable

Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, and, when necessary, additional editorial board members or independent reviewers may be consulted to ensure an objective assessment. The final decision on the appeal rests with the Editor-in-Chief.