Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully complete the initial assessment are assigned to a Section Editor with expertise in the relevant field.

The Section Editor is responsible for selecting reviewers, overseeing the review process, and making recommendations regarding the manuscript’s scientific merit.

1. Double-Blind Review

The Journal of Hearing Science uses a double-blind peer-review system, in which:
• reviewers do not know the identity of the authors;
• authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

To maintain the integrity of this process, authors should ensure that manuscript files do not contain identifying information.

The Journal aims to obtain evaluations from at least two independent reviewers.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers; however, the final selection of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the Editorial Board.

2. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript in the following areas (questions included in the review form):

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.

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:
• Very good – publish without changes
• Good – publish after minor revision
• Revise after major corrections
• Reject – unsuitable for publication.

3. Editorial Decision

After receiving the reviews, the Section Editor evaluates the reviewers’ comments and prepares a recommendation for the Associate Editor.

The final decision is made by the Associate Editor, who considers:
• the reviewers’ comments
• the Section Editor’s recommendation
• the scientific quality and relevance of the manuscript.

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit a detailed point-by-point response to reviewers' comments together with a revised manuscript.