International Journal of Global Health

Submit Manuscript

Peer-review responsibilities

For reviewers

IJGH reviewers provide confidential, objective and constructive assessments of population, health-system, international and transnational research. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; the authorised editor makes the decision.

Contact the editorial office
JournalInternational Journal of Global Health
ISSN2693-1176
Peer reviewSingle-blind (double-blind on request)
SelectionBy manuscript expertise

Before accepting an invitation

Accept only when the manuscript is within your subject or methodological competence, you can meet the assignment due date and no conflict prevents impartial review.

Conflicts

Disclose recent collaboration, a current shared institution even without direct collaboration, close institutional or personal relationships, direct competition, financial interests, strong advocacy positions or other circumstances that could affect judgement.

Availability

Decline promptly if you cannot complete the assignment by the due date. If a short extension would allow a sound review, request it from the editor before the deadline and state the date you can meet.

Confidentiality

Do not contact authors or disclose the invitation or manuscript.

Co-reviewing

Do not involve another person without prior editor approval. An approved co-reviewer must be identified and follow the same obligations.

What to evaluate

Scope and contribution

Is the central question population-, programme-, health-system-, international- or transnationally focused and within Aims and Scope? If the manuscript is presented as global-health research, is that relevance demonstrated rather than asserted?

Study design and methods

Are design, sampling, measurements and analysis appropriate and sufficiently described? Identify analyses outside your expertise so the editor can seek statistical or methodological review; do not make unsupported statistical demands.

Results and uncertainty

Do the data support the results, with missing data and uncertainty handled appropriately?

Interpretation

Are conclusions proportionate to the evidence and applicable to the studied population and setting?

Ethics and integrity

Are approvals, consent, registration, authorship, interests and funding disclosed where required?

Reporting

Is the relevant reporting guideline used, and are tables, figures, references and data availability clear?

Context and limitations

Are setting, implementation conditions, equity, generalisability and limitations addressed?

Write a useful report

  • Begin with a concise summary of the question and approach
  • Separate major concerns from minor corrections
  • Explain why each major concern matters and identify supporting evidence
  • Distinguish required changes from optional suggestions
  • Comment on limitations and whether conclusions are proportionate
  • Use respectful, specific and non-discriminatory language
  • Keep confidential comments to the editor factual and necessary

Reviewers recommend; editors decide

Give a recommendation consistent with the report, but do not address the author as though you are issuing the editorial decision. Requested citations must be directly relevant and must not be used to increase citations to the reviewer’s own work.

Confidentiality and responsible tool use

Use the manuscript only for review. Do not retain, distribute or use unpublished information for personal or professional benefit. Do not upload manuscript content, author-response documents or the report to any unapproved externally hosted AI tool or service. AI output cannot replace your independent assessment.

Revised manuscripts

Read the revised manuscript together with the author’s point-by-point response. Check whether the issues from the prior round have been addressed and whether changes create a material new concern. Do not introduce unnecessary new requirements in a later round unless they are needed to correct a newly identified substantive problem.

Research-integrity concerns

Privately alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, image or data manipulation, undisclosed conflicts or participant-protection concerns. Provide the specific basis for the concern. Do not investigate independently or contact authors, institutions or third parties.

Reviewer selection and support

Reviewers are selected for each manuscript based on relevant expertise, independence and availability. An expression of interest does not guarantee selection. Reviewing activity, payment, membership or use of a service confers no advantage in the review or acceptance of a reviewer’s own work and does not automatically lead to an editorial appointment.

Assignment-specific questions should be sent through the editorial system or to [email protected].

Questions about an assignment?

Ask the handling editor or editorial office before accepting or sharing any manuscript information.

Contact the editorial office

Menu