Editor Guidelines
Standards, responsibilities, and best practices for members of the Journal of Human Health Research Editorial Board.
Shaping the Future of Health Research
Editors are the foundation of scientific integrity at JHHR. Your expertise, judgment, and ethical standards ensure that only rigorous, impactful research reaches our global readership. This guide outlines the expectations and responsibilities that uphold our journal's reputation.
JHHR editors serve as gatekeepers of scientific quality, ensuring that published research contributes meaningfully to human health knowledge. Editors evaluate manuscripts for originality, methodological soundness, and significance to the field. They facilitate the peer review process by selecting qualified reviewers, managing timelines, and synthesizing feedback into constructive editorial decisions. Editors must balance rigorous standards with fairness and timeliness, providing authors with transparent communication throughout the review process.
Initial Evaluation
Upon receiving a manuscript assignment, editors must first assess whether the submission falls within JHHR's scope. This initial screening should evaluate originality, basic methodological soundness, and potential contribution to human health research. Manuscripts that clearly fall outside scope or have fundamental flaws should be desk-rejected with constructive feedback to help authors find a more suitable venue or improve their work.
Reviewer Selection
Selecting appropriate reviewers is critical to the peer review process. Editors should identify at least two independent experts with relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest. Consider geographic and institutional diversity when possible. Verify that selected reviewers have a track record of timely, constructive reviews. Before inviting reviewers, confirm they have no personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors that could bias their assessment.
Timeline Management
Editors are responsible for ensuring timely progress through the review cycle. Monitor reviewer responses and send reminders for overdue reviews. If a reviewer becomes unresponsive, promptly identify an alternative. JHHR aims to complete the initial peer review within 2-4 weeks. Delays should be communicated to authors proactively. Editors should respond to editorial assignments within 48 hours to avoid bottlenecks in the process.
Decision Making
Editorial decisions should be based on the scientific merit of the manuscript, synthesizing reviewer feedback with the editor's own assessment. Decisions include Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, and Reject. Provide clear, actionable feedback to authors that explains the rationale for the decision. When reviewers disagree, editors must weigh the arguments and may seek additional review or make an independent judgment based on their expertise.
When evaluating manuscripts for JHHR, editors should consider the following domain-specific criteria for health research:
- Study Design: Is the research methodology appropriate for the research question? Are the study design, sample size, and statistical approaches suitable?
- Population and Setting: Are the study population and healthcare setting clearly described? Is there adequate generalizability of findings?
- Outcome Measures: Are health outcomes appropriately defined and measured using validated instruments or established criteria?
- Ethical Considerations: Does the study comply with ethical standards for human subjects research, including IRB/ethics committee approval?
- Clinical Significance: Do the findings have meaningful implications for patient care, public health policy, or clinical practice?
- Reproducibility: Are methods described in sufficient detail for replication by other researchers?
- Limitations: Are study limitations honestly acknowledged and their potential impact on findings discussed?
Editors must be vigilant in upholding publication ethics throughout the review process. Key ethical responsibilities include:
- Plagiarism Detection: Ensure all manuscripts undergo plagiarism screening. Report suspected plagiarism to the Editor-in-Chief.
- Conflict of Interest: Identify and manage any conflicts of interest among authors, reviewers, or yourself. Recuse yourself from manuscripts where you have a conflict.
- Confidentiality: Treat all manuscript information as confidential. Do not share content or discuss submissions with unauthorized parties.
- Fabrication and Falsification: Report any suspected data fabrication, falsification, or image manipulation to the Editor-in-Chief immediately.
- Authorship Disputes: Refer authorship disputes to the Editor-in-Chief for investigation according to COPE guidelines.
- Duplicate Submission: Be alert to signs of simultaneous submission to multiple journals, which violates publication ethics.
COPE Guidelines
JHHR adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for best practices in publication ethics. Editors are expected to familiarize themselves with COPE's core practices and flowcharts for handling ethical issues. When ethical concerns arise, consult with the Editor-in-Chief and refer to COPE resources for guidance on appropriate responses.
Professional, respectful communication is essential throughout the editorial process:
- Respond to editorial assignments within 48 hours, either accepting or declining based on expertise and availability
- Send reminder notices to reviewers approaching deadlines and personally follow up with unresponsive reviewers
- Provide authors with timely updates on manuscript status, especially if delays occur
- Frame decision letters constructively, offering actionable guidance for revision even when rejecting manuscripts
- Maintain professional tone in all correspondence, avoiding personal criticism of authors or reviewers
- Escalate concerns or complex situations to the Editor-in-Chief promptly
Editors play a mentorship role in developing the reviewer community. When assigning reviews, provide clear instructions and expectations. Evaluate reviewer performance and provide feedback to help improve the quality of reviews. Acknowledge outstanding reviewers through JHHR's recognition programs. When reviews are inadequate or late, provide constructive feedback while maintaining a positive relationship for future invitations.
Questions for the Editorial Office?
For guidance on specific cases or general inquiries, contact the JHHR Editorial Office.
Contact Editorial Office
