- Editor guidance
- COPE principles
For Editors
Editors of the Journal of Public Health International oversee the assessment of manuscripts across public health, from initial screening to the editorial decision, and uphold the journal's standards of publication ethics.
Editorial responsibilities
What the journal asks of the Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board members and guest editors who handle manuscripts.
- Scope and screening
- Assess each assigned manuscript against the Aims and Scope and the journal's minimum requirements before it is sent for review.
- Reviewer selection
- Invite reviewers with relevant subject and methodological expertise who are independent of the authors.
- Evaluation
- Read the manuscript and weigh the reviewer reports, which are advisory, in reaching a recommendation or decision.
- Communication
- Give authors clear, constructive reasons for decisions and specific guidance on requested revisions.
- Research integrity
- Act on concerns about research or publication ethics in line with COPE guidance, together with the editorial office.
- Timely handling
- Keep assigned manuscripts moving and tell the editorial office promptly when an assignment cannot be taken on.
Editorial independence
Independence and conflicts of interest
Editors provide scholarly stewardship by overseeing peer review and upholding publication ethics. Editors recuse themselves from decisions on their own submissions; those manuscripts are handled independently.
An editor who has a competing interest in a manuscript, such as recent collaboration with an author, a shared institution, a personal relationship, or a financial interest in the work, declares it to the editorial office and does not handle that manuscript.
Editorial Board membership confers no advantage in the review or acceptance of an editor's own manuscripts.
Process
Handling peer review
- Screening
- All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.
- Review model
- Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
- Reviewers
- Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. Reviewers suggested by authors are invited only when they are independent of the authors.
- Proportionate assessment
- Expectations follow the article type. Hypotheses, statistical analysis, reporting checklists and structured sections apply where applicable, and conclusions should be proportionate to the evidence presented.
- Revisions
- Revised manuscripts are checked against the reviewers' and editor's requests; further review is arranged when the changes are substantial.
Publication ethics
Ethics checks
Editors confirm that the following are addressed, as applicable to the study and article type, before a manuscript is accepted. The full requirements are set out in the Editorial Policies.
- Originality. Similarity reports from Crossref Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, are assessed in context by the editor.
- Human participants. Ethics committee approval and informed consent, or a waiver documented by the ethics committee, where applicable.
- Animal research. Animal-ethics approval and reporting in line with the ARRIVE guidelines, where applicable.
- Trial registration. Interventional clinical trials must be registered in an accepted public trial registry at or before the first participant provides consent for enrollment. The registry name, registration number, and registration date must be reported in the manuscript.
- Data availability. Every empirical research manuscript must include a data-availability statement.
- Reporting guidelines. Use of the relevant checklist, such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE or STARD, where applicable.
- Authorship and disclosures. Author contributions, competing interests and funding are stated.
- Concerns. Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication or duplicate publication are referred to the editorial office and handled following COPE guidance.
Decisions
Basis of editorial decisions
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Decisions are independent of the article processing charge and of any fee, service, membership or role.
Decisions take the form of acceptance, minor revision, major revision or rejection. Appeals are considered through a documented process coordinated by the editorial office.
Confidentiality
Confidential material and AI tools
Submitted manuscripts, reviewer identities and review reports are confidential. Editors use unpublished material only for the purpose of the review and do not share it beyond the editorial process.
Editors do not upload manuscript content to AI tools where confidentiality cannot be assured, and they apply the journal's rule to the reviewers they invite: 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.
Editorial Board
Joining the Editorial Board
Researchers with expertise in public health who would like to serve as editors can apply online or write to the editorial office at [email protected] with a CV and a short statement of interest.