Each manuscript is reviewed by the editors, and if of a sufficient standard, sent for double blind reviewed by at least one editorial board members as chosen by the journal team based on their expertise. In the reviewing process, there are at least two reviewers for each manuscript for the related topic. Judgement from the first reviewer will be the main priority on which the editor will make their decision, if there are only two reviewers. Three weeks will be needed for reviewer to complete one round of the reviewing process. Generally, the candidate of the reviewers will be chosen based on their reputation in the international publication number and the study quality. For the next step, the editor sends an invitation letter to each candidate of the reviewer. After the candidate of the reviewer has been informed of their availability for the reviewing process, the editor can create an account for each reviewer and then send manuscript by OJS.All of the reviewing process is done by way of a doble blind review and is managed by the editor in OJS. The result may be accepting submission, revision required, resubmit for review, resubmit elsewhere, and decline submission. The sending author is given opportunity to correct the article on the basis of suggestion received from the reviewer. Certain information of whether the article is accepted and published or refused is given to the sending author in written. These processes take avarage 12 weeks until publish.

 

Review Policy

1. The journal does not provide a fast-track publication service. All manuscripts are processed according to the journal’s standard editorial and peer-review procedures.

2. A Letter of Acceptance (LOA) will not be issued before the completion of the peer-review process and the final acceptance decision by the editor.

3. Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee acceptance or publication. All manuscripts must undergo editorial screening and peer review in accordance with the journal’s policies.

4. Authors are expected to follow the journal’s submission guidelines and respond to editorial decisions and reviewer comments within the specified deadlines.

 

Post-Publication Discussion Policy

The Empathy Journal provides readers, authors, and the scientific community with the opportunity to submit responses, questions, or scientific discussions regarding published articles. Post-publication discussions aim to foster the exchange of knowledge, strengthen the validity of findings, and enhance the quality and integrity of scientific publications, particularly in the field of community service in health and related disciplines.

Responses must be evidence-based, use polite and professional language, and focus on the scientific substance of the article. Responses must not contain elements of insult, discrimination, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or allegations without sufficient evidence.

The editor will review each response before publication to ensure its relevance, scientific accuracy, and compliance with publication ethics. If necessary, the author of the article under discussion will be given the opportunity to provide a proportionate response.

If the discussion reveals scientific errors, ethical issues, or inconsistencies in information within a published article, the editor will conduct a further review and take appropriate action, such as publishing a correction, a statement of concern, or retracting the article if necessary. The entire process is conducted transparently, objectively, and in accordance with the principles of scientific publication ethics and the relevant guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).