Independent expertise
Select reviewers who can assess the subject and methods. Avoid authors’ close collaborators, recent coauthors and others with material conflicts.
Editorial stewardship
For editors
Editors apply JWRH’s scope, research-integrity standards and peer-review process consistently while protecting confidentiality and impartial decision-making.
- Initial reviewScope, ethics and reporting
- External reviewNormally at least two experts
- ConflictsDisclosure and recusal
Initial editorial assessment
- Confirm that the central contribution concerns reproductive biology, a reproductive or sexual-health condition, or related care, experience, rights or access. Apply the scope across the lifespan, including pediatric gynecology, abortion care, lactation and breastfeeding, and postmenopausal health.
- Check article type, completeness, originality declarations and prior-publication disclosures.
- Verify that ethics approval, consent, trial registration and data statements are present where applicable.
- Assess methods and evidence at the stated research stage. Basic and preclinical studies need explicit reproductive relevance, not demonstrated clinical benefit; clinical and population claims require evidence appropriate to the design.
- Identify statistical, image, authorship or privacy concerns requiring specialist advice.
- Return or decline work that cannot meet minimum scope, ethics or reporting requirements.
Reviewer selection and confidential handling
Reviewer expertise should match the manuscript’s subject, methods, biological model or population, and research stage. Match basic and preclinical work to relevant reproductive-science expertise, and clinical, sexual-health, qualitative and policy work to the corresponding subject and methodological expertise.
Peer review: Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
Balanced assessment
Seek additional statistical or methodological review when needed. Distinguish mechanistic findings, model findings, associations and clinical effects; do not reject scope-aligned basic research solely because it has no immediate clinical application.
Reviewer conduct
Address biased, disrespectful, coercive-citation or confidentiality concerns. Replace a review that does not provide an independent scholarly assessment.
Confidentiality and AI
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Decisions, revisions and appeals
- Decision basis
- Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
- Revision requests
- Separate essential validity or reporting changes from optional suggestions. Do not require irrelevant citations or citations intended to benefit the journal.
- Conflicting reviews
- Resolve substantive disagreements through editorial analysis or additional expert review rather than counting recommendations.
- Appeals
- Document the reasoning and route a reasoned appeal to a qualified, unconflicted senior editor.
Conflicts, recusal and post-publication duties
Editors escalate concerns rather than conducting private investigations or contacting parties outside the journal process.
Editor conflicts
Disclose relevant interests and recuse from handling where impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
Editor-authored manuscripts
An editor submitting to JWRH has no role in reviewer selection or the decision. Another qualified editor handles the work independently.
Research-integrity concerns
Document suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, authorship problems or undisclosed conflicts and notify the editorial office.
Published-record actions
Support proportionate corrections, expressions of concern or retractions when evidence shows that the published record requires action.
Independence of editorial roles
Editorial service is a scholarly responsibility. It confers no advantage in the review or acceptance of an editor’s own manuscript.