Reviewer Guidelines
Standards and best practices for peer reviewers contributing to the Journal of Human Health Research.
Ensuring Excellence in Health Research
Peer reviewers are essential to maintaining the scientific rigor and ethical integrity of JHHR. Your expert evaluation helps authors improve their work and ensures that only high-quality, valid research reaches the health community. This guide outlines expectations and best practices for effective peer review.
Peer reviewers serve as the quality assurance system for scientific publishing. At JHHR, reviewers evaluate manuscripts for scientific validity, methodological soundness, and contribution to human health knowledge. Your role is to provide constructive, unbiased feedback that helps editors make informed decisions and helps authors improve their work—whether or not the manuscript is ultimately accepted. Reviews should be thorough yet timely, completed within 2 weeks of acceptance.
Before accepting a review invitation, consider the following factors:
- Expertise Match: Ensure the manuscript falls within your area of expertise. If only partially qualified, inform the editor of your specific expertise areas.
- Conflicts of Interest: Decline if you have personal, professional, or financial relationships with any authors. Report potential conflicts immediately.
- Availability: Confirm you can complete the review within the deadline (typically 2 weeks). If unable to meet timeline, decline promptly so alternative reviewers can be invited.
- Prior Knowledge: Decline if you have seen or reviewed the manuscript previously, unless the editor is aware and requests your continued involvement.
When reviewing manuscripts for JHHR, apply the following criteria specific to health and medical research:
Scientific Validity
Assess whether the research question is clearly defined and significant. Evaluate the appropriateness of study design for the research question. Determine if the methodology is rigorous enough to support the conclusions drawn. Consider whether the findings advance our understanding of human health.
Methodology
Evaluate the study design (clinical trial, cohort, case-control, cross-sectional, qualitative). Assess sample size and statistical power. Review recruitment and selection procedures. Verify appropriate use of statistical methods and that they are correctly described. Confirm that data collection instruments are valid and reliable.
Results and Analysis
Verify that results are presented clearly and follow logically from the methods. Check statistical analyses for appropriateness and accurate interpretation. Evaluate tables and figures for clarity and necessity. Confirm that the data support the conclusions. Look for selective reporting of outcomes.
Clinical Significance
Assess the practical importance of findings for patient care or public health. Consider effect sizes and clinical meaningfulness, not just statistical significance. Evaluate generalizability to broader populations. Determine relevance to current clinical practice or health policy.
Health research requires rigorous ethical oversight. Reviewers should verify:
- IRB/Ethics Approval: Confirm that human subjects research received appropriate institutional review board or ethics committee approval.
- Informed Consent: Verify that appropriate informed consent procedures were followed for human participants research.
- Privacy and Confidentiality: Ensure patient privacy is protected and that identifiable health information is appropriately de-identified.
- Vulnerable Populations: If the study involves children, prisoners, pregnant women, or other vulnerable groups, verify additional protections were implemented.
- Animal Research: For studies involving animals, confirm compliance with relevant ethical guidelines and institutional protocols.
- Clinical Trial Registration: For randomized controlled trials, verify prospective registration in an appropriate registry.
Effective reviews are organized and actionable. Structure your feedback as follows:
- Summary: Brief paragraph summarizing the manuscript's aims and your overall assessment of its strengths and weaknesses.
- Major Comments: Address fundamental issues that affect the validity or interpretation of the research. These might include methodological flaws, unsupported conclusions, or significant omissions.
- Minor Comments: Address issues related to clarity, presentation, and formatting. Include suggestions for improving readability and organization.
- Recommendation: Provide a clear recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject) with justification aligned to your comments.
Constructive Feedback
Reviews should be constructive, specific, and respectful. Critique the science, not the authors. Provide actionable suggestions for improvement rather than vague criticism. Even when recommending rejection, offer feedback that helps authors improve future submissions. Remember that authors have invested significant effort in their work.
Maintain the highest ethical standards throughout the review process:
- Confidentiality: Treat all manuscript content as confidential. Do not share, discuss, or use information from manuscripts under review.
- Objectivity: Avoid bias based on authors' gender, nationality, institution, or prior work. Judge manuscripts solely on scientific merit.
- Timeliness: Complete reviews within the agreed deadline. Notify the editor promptly if you cannot meet the timeline.
- Disclosure: Report any conflicts of interest or competing interests. Do not review manuscripts from close colleagues or collaborators.
- Self-Citation: Do not suggest inclusion of your own work unless genuinely relevant. Excessive self-citation requests are inappropriate.
- Misconduct Reporting: Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical violations to the editor immediately.
JHHR values your time and strives to make the review process efficient. When you accept a review invitation, please plan to complete your evaluation within 2 weeks. If circumstances arise that prevent timely completion, notify the editor immediately so alternative arrangements can be made. Reviewers who consistently meet deadlines are given priority for future review invitations and recognition in our annual acknowledgments.
JHHR values the essential contribution of peer reviewers to the scientific enterprise. We recognize reviewers through annual acknowledgment in the journal, certificates of contribution, and expedited processing for their own submissions. Outstanding reviewers may be invited to join the Editorial Board. Your service helps maintain the scientific integrity of health research and advances knowledge that benefits human health worldwide.
Questions About Your Review?
Contact the JHHR Editorial Office for guidance on specific manuscripts or the review process.
Contact Editorial Office
