Peer Reviewers Process

Healthcare: Journal of Public Health applies a double-anonymized peer review process to ensure an objective, fair, and rigorous assessment of submitted manuscripts. In this process, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

All manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening before being sent to peer reviewers. The peer review process consists of the following stages:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is screened by the Editorial Office to ensure compliance with the journal's focus and scope, manuscript guidelines, ethical requirements, and basic academic standards.

The editorial team may also conduct plagiarism or similarity screening and check the completeness of essential research and publication information.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or are clearly outside the journal's scope may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.

2. Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assessed by an editor to determine their scientific relevance, originality, methodological appropriateness, and suitability for the journal.

The editor may decline a manuscript before peer review if it does not demonstrate sufficient scientific contribution, methodological rigor, or relevance to public health.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts considered suitable for peer review are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, publication record, and familiarity with the manuscript's topic or methodology.

Reviewers must not have a conflict of interest with the authors, institutions, research, or funding sources associated with the manuscript. Reviewers are required to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest and decline the invitation when impartiality may be compromised.

4. Double-Anonymized Review

The journal uses a double-anonymized peer review system, in which:

  • The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers.

  • The identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

  • Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.

  • Authors must not attempt to identify the reviewers.

  • All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and correspondence are treated as confidential.

This approach is intended to minimize potential bias and promote an impartial assessment of the manuscript.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  1. Relevance and scope – suitability of the manuscript for the journal's focus and scope.

  2. Originality and novelty – the originality and scientific contribution of the study.

  3. Scientific significance – the importance and potential contribution of the findings to public health knowledge, policy, practice, or research.

  4. Literature review – adequacy, relevance, and currency of the supporting literature.

  5. Methodology – appropriateness and rigor of the research design, participants or data sources, procedures, instruments, and analytical methods.

  6. Results – clarity, accuracy, and appropriate presentation of the findings.

  7. Discussion – interpretation of findings in relation to previous research and relevant theoretical or practical implications.

  8. Conclusion – consistency of the conclusions with the research objectives and findings.

  9. Ethical considerations – compliance with relevant research ethics requirements, where applicable.

  10. References – relevance, quality, currency, and appropriate citation of scholarly sources.

  11. Clarity and presentation – organization, readability, academic language, tables, figures, and overall presentation.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, evidence-based, and respectful comments that can help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

6. Reviewer Recommendation

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers provide a recommendation to the editor. The possible recommendations are:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject and Resubmit

  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the responsible editor based on the overall quality of the manuscript, the reviewers' comments, the journal's scope, and publication ethics.

7. Editorial Decision

After receiving the reviewers' reports, the editor evaluates the manuscript and determines the appropriate editorial decision.

Where reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the editor may:

  • request clarification from the reviewers;

  • invite an additional independent reviewer;

  • conduct an additional editorial assessment; or

  • make a decision based on the available evidence and the journal's editorial policies.

The editor has full responsibility for the final decision regarding publication.

8. Revision Process

When revision is required, authors must submit a revised manuscript within the period specified by the Editorial Office.

Authors are required to provide a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments, clearly explaining how each concern has been addressed. Where the authors disagree with a reviewer recommendation, they should provide a clear scientific justification.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

9. Second-Round Review

When substantial revisions are required, the revised manuscript may undergo a second round of peer review.

The editor may request further revisions when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's scientific and ethical standards.

10. Final Acceptance and Publication

A manuscript is accepted for publication only after the editor is satisfied that the manuscript has adequately addressed the reviewers' and editorial concerns and meets the journal's publication standards.

After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, proofreading, layout, and final publication.

Reviewer Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional purposes.

Reviewers must also:

  • maintain confidentiality throughout the review process;

  • provide objective and constructive assessments;

  • disclose potential conflicts of interest;

  • avoid personal criticism of authors;

  • provide appropriate justification for significant criticisms;

  • avoid requesting unnecessary citations to the reviewer's own work;

  • complete reviews within the agreed timeframe; and

  • notify the editor if they are unable to provide an impartial or timely review.

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts or their contents to external artificial intelligence systems or other third-party services unless explicitly permitted by the journal and confidentiality can be assured.

Editorial Independence

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor. Reviewer recommendations are considered an important part of the editorial decision-making process but do not automatically determine the final decision.

The journal is committed to maintaining editorial independence, confidentiality, transparency, fairness, and research integrity throughout the peer review and publication process.

The peer review policy is implemented in accordance with internationally recognized principles of publication ethics and responsible peer review, including guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and relevant recommendations for scholarly and biomedical publishing.