Review Process

The Journal of Hearing Science uses double-blind review, which means that the identities of both the reviewer and author are concealed from each other. Manuscripts are evaluated on the basis that they present new insights into the investigated topic, are likely to contribute to research progress, or change clinical practice or thinking about a disorder.

Received manuscripts are first examined by the J Hear Sci editors and screened for similarity by iThenticate. Manuscripts of low quality or which contain copied material are promptly rejected. Incomplete packages or manuscripts not prepared in the advised style are sent back to authors without review. Authors are notified with a reference number upon registration of the manuscript at the Editorial Office, and manuscripts are then sent to independent experts for scientific evaluation. We encourage authors to suggest the names of possible reviewers, but we reserve the right to final selection. Evaluation usually takes 1–3 months. Following the positive opinion of the independent reviewers, submitted papers are accepted for publication.

To ensure our policy of double-blind review works effectively, do not include a list of authors and affiliations in the manuscript – you will be asked to list all authorship data when submitting the paper online. Check that the Word-Options-General properties box does not include a user name.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manusctipt in the following areas:

1. Title and abstract
Please assess if the title is consistent with the presented problem and reflects the main message of the study. The abstract should give an adequate picture of the entire article.
2. Background
Pay special attention to the background of the study which should be made clear and helpful to readers unfamiliar with the subject. In your opinion, has the purpose of the article been clearly presented?
3. Material and methods
Pay special attention to the following issues:
Are there any ethical concerns about this study?
Is the research design appropriate and the methods clearly explained?
Are the criteria for selecting the sample clearly explained and justified?
Are the essential characteristics of the sample adequately described?
Is the sample size adequate and representative?
Have the data been collected in a systematic and comprehensive manner?
Is the statistical methodology appropriate?
4. Results / case report
Pay special attention to the following issues:
Is the analysis of the data systematic?
Are the results credible?
Are the results important?
5. Discussion
Pay special attention to the following issues:
Is the interpretation of the results clearly presented and adequately supported by the evidence adduced?
6. Conclusions
Pay special attention to the following issues:
Are the conclusions logically valid and justified by the evidence adduced?
7. Tables, graphics, photographs
Are all figures, tables and photographs adequate and necessary?
8. References
In your opinion, are the references up-to-date? Have the most important studies been cited?
9. Overall publication value (mandatory)
Is the topic: New/Emerging, Important, Old – abundant publications exist, Not important
Citation potential: High, Medium, Low
10. General comments to the authors
Please provide some remarks that will help the authors improve the quality of their manuscript.