Policies
The following guidelines and procedures are applicable to the Journal. Authors are advised to thoroughly review these guidelines before submitting their manuscripts to ensure compliance with all requirements.
Peer Review Process
All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process, ensuring the anonymity of both authors and reviewers throughout the evaluation. Below is a detailed outline of the review process.
Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon receipt, the manuscript is first evaluated by the editor-in-chief to determine its suitability for the journal. This assessment considers factors such as alignment with the journal’s scope, adherence to submission guidelines (e.g., word count, formatting, and language clarity), research quality, originality, and relevance to the target audience. Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria may be returned to the author for revisions or rejected outright. Rejections at this stage typically occur due to significant flaws, lack of originality, poor language quality, or misalignment with the journal’s focus. Authors are promptly notified of such decisions, allowing them to submit their work to other journals without delay.
Peer Review Phase
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are forwarded to two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are initially invited to assess the manuscript based on its abstract. Upon acceptance, they receive the full manuscript and are given 2–3 weeks to complete their evaluation. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could bias their assessment.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on criteria such as novelty, originality, contribution to the field, ethical considerations, methodological rigor, clarity of findings, and adherence to submission guidelines. They provide both general and specific feedback to the authors. In cases of conflicting reviews, a second round of peer review may be initiated. The final recommendations from reviewers fall into one of the following categories:
- Accept as is: The manuscript is suitable for publication without changes.
- Accept with minor revisions: The manuscript requires minor adjustments before publication.
- Accept with major revisions: The manuscript necessitates substantial revisions, such as reanalysis of data or rewriting sections.
- Reject: The manuscript is deemed unsuitable for publication due to fundamental issues.
Revision Phase
Authors are notified of required revisions and provided with detailed feedback. Minor revisions typically require a one-week turnaround, while major revisions may take up to two weeks.
Final Decision Phase
The editor reviews the revised manuscript to ensure all reviewer comments have been addressed. Further revisions may be requested, or the manuscript may be rejected if revisions are inadequate.
Editing and Proofreading
Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, layout editing, and proofreading to ensure linguistic and formatting quality. Authors are required to review the final PDF before publication.
Complaints and Appeals
The journal is committed to addressing complaints promptly and fairly. Authors disputing editorial decisions may appeal to the editor-in-chief, who will review the manuscript, peer feedback, and make a final decision. If necessary, additional reviewers may be consulted.
Plagiarism Policy
All submissions are screened for plagiarism using Turnitin at two stages: upon initial submission and after final revisions. Manuscripts found to contain plagiarism or self-plagiarism are immediately rejected.
Handling Plagiarism Allegations
- Complainants must contact the journal’s editorial office, specifying the plagiarized sections and providing references to both the original and suspected work.
- The editorial office investigates the claim, contacting the involved authors for an explanation.
- If plagiarism is confirmed, the article may be corrected, retracted, or removed, depending on the severity of the issue.
Retraction and Correction Policy
The journal prioritizes the integrity of its academic record. Published articles may be corrected, retracted, or removed in cases of significant errors, ethical violations, or legal issues. Retraction notices are published and linked to the original article.
Informed Consent Policy
Authors must obtain written consent from individuals featured in case reports or photographs, except in cases where the work is of significant public health importance, obtaining consent is impractical, and publication is unlikely to cause objection.
Conflict of Interest
Authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose any financial or personal interests that could influence their work. Conflicts of interest are managed by reassigning manuscripts to unbiased parties.
Confidentiality
All personal data must be handled with strict confidentiality. Written consent is generally required for publishing identifiable information.
Open Access Policy
WAPP journals are open access, allowing users to read, download, and share content freely for lawful purposes without prior permission.
Ethical Standards
The journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, ensuring fair and transparent handling of appeals, complaints, and allegations of misconduct. Abusive behavior toward journal staff or contributors is not tolerated and may result in the withdrawal of contributions or future engagement.
By following these guidelines, the Journal aims to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity and publishing excellence.
