For editors

Editorial role and authority

Handling editors assess scope and basic suitability, select independent reviewers and evaluate the substance of reports. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Only the Editor-in-Chief or an editor formally delegated final-decision authority by the editorial office may issue the final decision; other editors recommend a reasoned outcome.

Acceptance is based on relevance, validity, methodological rigour, ethical compliance and clarity.

Assignment workflow

1. Check the assignmentConfirm appropriate subject and methodological expertise.
2. Declare conflictsDisclose interests and recuse when independence is uncertain.
3. Screen the manuscriptAssess scope, completeness, ethics documentation and whether external review is justified.
4. Select reviewersInvite relevant, independent reviewers without material conflicts.
5. Assess the reportsEvaluate reasoning and evidence; do not count recommendations as votes.
6. Record a decisionExplain the scientific, methodological, ethical or scope-based reasons, required changes and outcome respectfully.
7. Escalate concernsRefer misconduct, authorship, data-integrity, complaint and appeal matters to the editorial office.

Assignment-specific due dates are communicated through the editorial system. Notify the editorial office promptly if an assignment cannot be completed as requested.

Independence, conflicts and recusal

Editors must not handle a manuscript when they are an author, recent collaborator, close colleague, direct competitor, supervisor or supervisee of an author, or when another financial, personal or professional interest could influence judgement. Submissions from editorial-board members, Guest Editors or close institutional colleagues must be assigned to an independent authorised editor.

Selecting and overseeing reviewers

• Suitable research manuscripts are normally assessed by at least two independent reviewers
• Match expertise to the population, international or transnational health question, methods and setting
• Seek independent perspectives and relevant contextual knowledge
• Avoid recent collaborators, close institutional ties and direct competitors
• Add methodological expertise when analysis requires it
• When reports conflict, are incomplete or are methodologically weak, assess the reasoning, seek clarification or another independent review, and do not resolve the decision by counting votes
• Replace abusive, discriminatory, superficial or unsupported reports
• Protect reviewer identity under the applicable review model

Confidentiality and research integrity

Manuscripts, supporting files, reports and correspondence are confidential. Do not share them outside the authorised process or use unpublished ideas, data or methods for personal benefit.

Do not upload manuscript material, reports or author information to any unapproved externally hosted AI tool or service. AI-generated text cannot replace independent editorial assessment.

Appointment and support

IJGH editorial roles are filled by invitation or after a vetted expression of interest. Assessment considers current affiliation, ORCID, curriculum vitae, relevant publication and peer-review experience, and demonstrated subject or methodological expertise. An expression of interest does not confer editor status or guarantee appointment.

Editors should assess whether a manuscript presented as global-health research demonstrates a genuine international, comparative, cross-border or transnational contribution.

Technical problems, policy questions and recusal requests should be sent to [email protected].