MCHU (Mother and Child Health Update) is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, objectivity, and scientific credibility of all manuscripts published in the journal. All manuscripts submitted to MCHU undergo a structured editorial assessment and peer-review process.

MCHU applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editorial team to determine their suitability for further review. The initial screening includes assessment of:

• Relevance to the journal's Aim and Scope;
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines;
• Completeness and organization of the manuscript;
• Scientific relevance and originality;
• Ethical considerations;
• Plagiarism and similarity;
• Appropriate use and disclosure of Artificial Intelligence (AI), where applicable; and
• Overall quality and suitability for peer review.

MCHU applies an editorial similarity threshold of a maximum of 15%, subject to qualitative assessment by the editorial team.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external peer review. This stage is referred to as desk review or editorial screening.

2. Assignment to an Editor

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an Editor or Section Editor with appropriate expertise. The assigned editor coordinates the review process, selects suitable reviewers, evaluates reviewer comments, and makes recommendations regarding the editorial decision.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Each manuscript is normally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Expertise in the relevant field;
• Academic and/or clinical experience;
• Research and publication experience;
• Absence of significant conflicts of interest; and
• Ability to provide objective and constructive scientific evaluation.

Reviewers should not have relationships or interests that may compromise the independence or objectivity of the review process.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

MCHU applies a double-blind peer-review process. During the review process:

• Reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities;
• Authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities; and
• Manuscripts should be prepared without unnecessary identifying information.

Authors should remove identifying information from the manuscript file where required by the submission system.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

1. Relevance to the scope of MCHU;
2. Originality and scientific contribution;
3. Clarity of the research objectives;
4. Appropriateness of the study design and methodology;
5. Adequacy of data collection and analysis;
6. Validity and clarity of the findings;
7. Depth and relevance of the discussion;
8. Consistency between findings and conclusions;
9. Use of relevant and current references;
10. Ethical compliance;
11. Clarity and organization of scientific writing; and
12. Overall contribution to maternal and child health knowledge, practice, education, healthcare services, or policy.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful comments.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Resubmit for Review
• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor based on the scientific quality of the manuscript, reviewer reports, journal policies, and publication ethics.

7. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must respond carefully to all reviewer and editor comments. Authors should submit:

1. A revised manuscript;
2. A detailed point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments; and
3. A marked or highlighted version of the revised manuscript when requested.

Authors should clearly explain any reviewer recommendation that has not been implemented.

Recommended revision periods are:

• Minor Revision: 7–14 days
• Major Revision: 14–30 days

Revision periods may be adjusted at the discretion of the MCHU editorial team when necessary.

Failure to submit a revision within the specified period without prior communication may result in the manuscript being considered withdrawn or requiring a new submission.

8. Re-Review

Manuscripts requiring major revision may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the assigned editor when the requested changes do not require additional external scientific assessment. Additional review may be requested when necessary.

9. Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations

If reviewers provide substantially different or conflicting recommendations, the editor will evaluate the reviewer reports and the manuscript independently.

The editor may:

• Make an editorial decision based on the available reviews;
• Request clarification from the reviewers;
• Appoint an additional independent reviewer; or
• Request further revision from the authors.

The final decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editorial team.

10. Review Timeline

MCHU aims to conduct the peer-review process efficiently while maintaining scientific quality. The target timeline is:

• Initial editorial screening: approximately 3–7 days
• Peer-review process: approximately 2–4 weeks
• Author revision: according to the type of revision requested
• Final editorial assessment: after all required revisions have been satisfactorily completed

Actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the extent of revisions required.

11. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to MCHU are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not:

• Disclose manuscript content to unauthorized persons;
• Use unpublished data, ideas, or information for personal advantage;
• Distribute or reproduce submitted manuscripts without authorization; or
• Discuss confidential manuscript information outside the editorial and peer-review process.

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality before, during, and after completion of the review.

12. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their objectivity.

A reviewer should decline a review assignment when there is a financial, professional, institutional, personal, academic, or other relationship that may create an actual or perceived conflict of interest. When necessary, the editor will appoint another reviewer.

13. Research and Publication Ethics

If reviewers or editors identify possible plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, data fabrication, data falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, authorship concerns, unethical use of Artificial Intelligence, or other forms of research or publication misconduct, the manuscript may be temporarily suspended from the review process while the matter is investigated.

MCHU may request clarification or supporting documentation from the authors and may take appropriate editorial action according to the seriousness of the issue.

14. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers may use Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools as supporting tools during the peer-review process, for example to assist with language checking, organizing review notes, improving the clarity of comments, or identifying potentially relevant issues.

However, AI must not replace the reviewer's independent scientific judgment, critical evaluation, professional expertise, or responsibility for the final review report.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for:

• Evaluating the scientific quality and validity of the manuscript;
• Assessing the appropriateness of the methodology, analysis, interpretation, and conclusions;
• Verifying the accuracy and relevance of AI-assisted comments or suggestions;
• Ensuring that the final review reflects their own professional and scientific judgment; and
• Maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of the peer-review process.

When using AI-assisted tools, reviewers must take appropriate precautions to protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, unpublished data, personal information, intellectual property, and other sensitive content.

Reviewers should not enter confidential manuscript content into AI platforms when the platform's data handling, storage, reuse, or privacy practices cannot ensure adequate protection of the manuscript and its associated information.

AI-generated suggestions or analyses must be critically evaluated and verified by the reviewer before being incorporated into the peer-review report.

AI may assist the peer-review process, but it must never replace the independent scientific assessment and final judgment of the reviewer.

15. Final Decision

The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor of MCHU.

Possible final decisions include:

• Accepted for Publication
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Resubmission Required
• Rejected

Acceptance is granted only when the manuscript has satisfactorily addressed relevant scientific, ethical, editorial, and technical requirements.

The journal reserves the right to conduct additional editorial checks before publication.