Peer-review models 

Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal uses double-anonymous model in which editors take reasonable steps to withhold author and reviewers’ identities from each other. Whatever, editors remain responsible for decisions; reviewer recommendations are advisory, not binding.
When a manuscript arrives, the journal office first checks basic elements such as completeness of the submission, adherence to scope and format, and presence of required ethical approvals and declarations. The Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor then conducts an initial screening to decide whether the manuscript is suitable for external review.

Submission handling & peer-review workflow

Work that clearly falls outside the journal’s scope or fails to meet minimum quality standards may be declined at this stage, without sending it to external reviewers.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screen are sent for external peer review, usually to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are asked to comment on strengths and weaknesses, suggest improvements, and give a recommendation (for example, accept, revise, or reject). Once reviews are in, the handling editor weighs the comments, the manuscript itself, and the journal’s aims and priorities, and then issues a recommendation. The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for the final decision and may consult additional reviewers or editors if needed.

How reviewers are selected & invited

Editors select reviewers on the basis of subject expertise, methodological experience, and the ability to provide balanced, constructive feedback. Potential reviewers may be identified from the reference list, databases, editorial networks, and prior high-quality reviews. Authors are welcome to suggest potential reviewers and to indicate individuals they would prefer not to review their work; editors consider these suggestions but are not obliged to follow them.
Before agreeing to review, invited experts should ask themselves three questions:

• Do I have the right expertise for this manuscript?
• Can I complete a thoughtful review within the requested timeframe?
• Do I have any conflicts of interest that might compromise my judgment or be perceived as biasing it?

If the answer to any of these is “no”, the invitation should be declined or the concerns should be discussed with the editor.

Reviewer conduct & preparation of reports

Reviewers are expected to write reports that are respectful, specific, and grounded in the evidence presented. Feedback should focus on the work rather than the authors and should avoid inflammatory, sarcastic, or belittling language. Even when a reviewer considers that a manuscript should be rejected, the report should explain the reasons calmly and clearly so that authors and editors can understand the underlying concerns.
A good review typically comments on the importance and originality of the work, the clarity of the question, the appropriateness of the methods, the reliability of the data and analyses, the logic of the conclusions, and any ethical or reporting issues. When suggesting changes, reviewers should, where possible, refer to specific sections, figures, or tables.
If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, data fabrication, or image manipulation, these concerns should be raised confidentially with the editor rather than stated directly in comments visible to authors.
Reviewers should not use the review process to promote their own work inappropriately. Requests for additional citations should be based on genuine relevance and completeness, not on personal or journal citation counts. Reviewers must not propose changes that mainly serve their own interests.
If a reviewer wishes to involve a trainee or junior colleague in preparing a review, they should first obtain permission from the handling editor and must name the co-reviewer(s) in their confidential comments to the editor. The invited reviewer remains fully responsible for the content and timeliness of the report and must ensure that co-reviewers follow the same standards of confidentiality and research integrity. Reviewers and co-reviewers should not contact the authors directly about the manuscript.

Confidentiality, conflicts of interest & use of tools

Manuscripts sent for review are confidential. Reviewers must not share them with colleagues, students, or other third parties without explicit permission from the editor, and must not use the data, ideas, or analyses for their own research or teaching until the article is publicly available. Files should be stored and handled in ways that protect this confidentiality.
Reviewers must promptly declare any conflicts of interest they identify, whether financial, personal, institutional, or academic. Examples include close collaboration or competition with the authors, being employed by the same institution, holding patents or stock linked to the work, or having strong public positions on the topic. The editor will decide whether the reviewer can still provide a fair review or whether another reviewer should be sought.
The use of automated tools, including generative AI systems, to draft or summarize reviews is subject to the publisher policy on AI and digital tools. Such tools must not be used to compromise confidentiality, and they do not replace the reviewer’s personal responsibility for the content and tone of the report.
Authors and reviewers are encouraged to consult the dedicated policy on generative AI & digital tools, as well as the Guide for reviewers, for further practical examples of acceptable and unacceptable uses of such tools in the peer-review process.

Editorial decisions & communication with authors

Editors consider reviewer reports alongside their own assessment of the manuscript and the journal’s editorial priorities. Reviewers’ recommendations are important, but editors may reach a different conclusion when the evidence supports it, for example when reviews are mixed or when particular comments are clearly outside the journal’s scope or inconsistent with its policies. The decision may be to accept, invite revision (major or minor), or reject.
Decision letters explain the outcome in a transparent and constructive way. For revisions, editors highlight the issues that must be addressed and may indicate which questions are optional. Authors are asked to submit a detailed response to reviewers explaining how each point has been handled or why a suggested change was not made.

Appeals & requests for re-evaluation

Authors who believe that a decision is clearly inconsistent with the content of the reviews, is based on a factual error, or reflects a breach of the principles in this policy may submit an appeal. Appeals should be courteous, focused, and submitted in writing within a one-month period after the decision. Simply disagreeing with the editorial judgment or wishing for a different outcome is not, by itself, grounds for appeal.
Appeals are considered by a senior editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision, and, where possible, by the Editor-in-Chief. The outcome may be that the original decision is upheld, that an additional expert opinion is sought, or that the manuscript is invited back into consideration under specified conditions. Editors are not required to obtain new reviews for every appeal and may decline repetitive or unfounded appeals.
During the appeal process, authors should not submit substantially revised versions unless the editor specifically requests them. If an appeal leads to further review, the editor will explain the next steps and any limits on what can be changed at that stage.

Raising concerns about the peer-review process

Occasionally, concerns arise about how peer review was conducted. Examples include suspected reviewer identity misuse, evidence that a reviewer has shared or used confidential material inappropriately, undisclosed conflicts of interest that may have influenced a report, or indications that the peer-review process has been manipulated. Authors, reviewers, and readers are encouraged to raise such concerns with the journal when they come to light.
When a credible concern is raised, editors will look into the matter in line with the publisher procedures and, where appropriate, with guidance from recognized research-integrity bodies. Actions may include seeking an explanation from the individuals involved, obtaining additional reviews, involving institutional integrity offices, or, if a published article is affected, issuing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction. The primary aim is to protect the reliability of the scholarly record while treating all parties fairly.
Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal is committed to considering genuine concerns in good faith and to protecting individuals who raise them responsibly from retaliation. At the same time, journals may not be able to share every detail of internal editorial deliberations, particularly where confidentiality is owed to reviewers or other parties.

Timelines, reviewer performance & ongoing improvement

Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal strives to balance thorough peer review with timely decisions. The median time between submission to firs decision and first review round are 14 days and 90 days, respectively. More complex manuscripts or cases requiring additional ethical review may take longer. Editors may send reminders to reviewers and occasionally reassign a manuscript when reviews are significantly delayed.
Reviewer performance is monitored over time, with attention to the quality, clarity, tone, and timeliness of reports. Reviewers who consistently provide careful, constructive input may be recognized through acknowledgments, invitations to join editorial boards, or other forms of professional recognition. Reviewers who repeatedly fail to deliver promised reviews, or submit unprofessional reports may no longer be invited to review for the journal.

Editorial records & training

To support transparency and accountability, journals maintain secure records of submissions, reviewer invitations and responses, reports, decisions and relevant correspondence. Access to these records is restricted to authorized editorial and publisher staff and is used only for legitimate purposes such as managing manuscripts, responding to queries or complaints, and meeting legal or indexing requirements.