Reviewer Guidelines
Comprehensive standards and expectations for IJGH peer reviewers in global health research.
Guardians of Scientific Quality
Peer reviewers are the backbone of scientific publishing. Your expert evaluation ensures that IJGH maintains the highest standards of scientific rigor, policy relevance, and ethical integrity. These guidelines outline your responsibilities, evaluation criteria, and best practices for constructive review.
Journal at a Glance
ISSN: 2693-1176 | DOI prefix: 10.14302/issn.2693-1176 | License: CC BY 4.0 | Open access publishing
Single-blind peer review with typical editorial decisions in 2-4 weeks for complete submissions.
As an IJGH reviewer, your fundamental duties include:
- Evaluate manuscripts objectively for scientific validity, methodological rigor, and policy significance
- Assess the originality of the research question and its contribution to global health knowledge
- Complete reviews within the requested timeline (typically 14-21 days)
- Provide constructive, specific, and actionable feedback to help authors improve their work
- Identify any ethical concerns, including potential plagiarism, data integrity issues, or authorship problems
- Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript contents and your review
- Declare any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment
- Adhere to COPE guidelines for ethical peer review conduct
Before agreeing to review a manuscript, consider the following:
Expertise Match
Confirm that the manuscript falls within your area of expertise (e.g., infectious diseases, maternal health, health systems, epidemiology). If the methodology is outside your competence, inform the editor so a methodological reviewer can be added.
Conflict of Interest
Decline if you have a personal relationship with the authors, recent collaboration, competitive interest in the research topic, or financial conflicts. When in doubt, disclose to the editor.
Time Commitment
Ensure you can complete the review within the requested timeline. A typical thorough review requires 2-4 hours. If you cannot meet the deadline, decline promptly so another reviewer can be invited.
When assessing a global health manuscript, systematically evaluate the following dimensions:
| Criterion | Key Questions |
|---|---|
| Originality | Does this address a significant gap in global health knowledge? Is the research question novel and policy relevant? |
| Scientific Validity | Is the study design appropriate? Are sample sizes adequate? Are statistical methods correctly applied? |
| Methodology | Are data collection methods well-described? Is the analysis approach rigorous? Are limitations acknowledged? |
| Results | Do the data support the conclusions? Are outcomes clearly presented? Is uncertainty appropriately quantified? |
| Policy Relevance | Does this inform health policy or practice? Is it generalizable? What is the practical impact? |
| Presentation | Is the manuscript clearly written? Are figures and tables clear? Is the length appropriate? |
LMIC Context
For research conducted in low- and middle-income countries, consider whether the authors demonstrate appropriate understanding of local context, community engagement, and practical implementation feasibility.
Implementation Science
Assess whether implementation studies adequately describe the intervention, setting, and contextual factors that affect generalizability. Consider applicability to other settings.
Multi-Country Studies
Evaluate whether multi-country analyses appropriately account for between-country heterogeneity and whether ethical approvals from all participating sites are documented.
Policy Analysis
For policy-focused manuscripts, assess the quality of evidence synthesis, stakeholder analysis, and whether recommendations are appropriately nuanced for different contexts.
Your review should help authors improve their manuscript regardless of your recommendation:
- Structure your review: Organize comments into major issues (requiring substantial revision) and minor issues
- Be specific: Reference specific lines, figures, or tables. Vague criticism is unhelpful
- Explain your reasoning: When identifying a flaw, explain why it matters and suggest how to address it
- Maintain professionalism: Critique the work, not the authors. Avoid sarcasm or dismissive language
- Acknowledge strengths: Begin by noting the manuscript's positive aspects before discussing weaknesses
- Provide references: When suggesting additional literature, provide specific citations
Confidential Comments to Editor
The confidential section is for your recommendation and any concerns not appropriate for the authors (e.g., suspected misconduct). Do not use this section to criticize authors in language you would not use directly.
When reviewing a revised submission:
- Carefully read the authors' point-by-point response to your previous comments
- Verify that substantive concerns have been adequately addressed in the revised manuscript
- If revisions are insufficient, clearly explain what additional changes are needed
- Avoid raising new issues unless they are critical and were not apparent in the original version
- Complete re-reviews promptly, typically within 7-10 days
Reviewers must maintain the highest ethical standards:
- Do not use ideas, data, or methods from manuscripts under review for your own research or benefit
- Do not share manuscripts with colleagues or trainees without editor permission
- Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data fabrication to the editor immediately
- Do not contact authors directly about the manuscript
- Decline further reviews if you become aware of a conflict during the review process
Questions About Reviewing?
Our editorial team is available to support you with any questions about the review process or specific manuscripts.
Contact Editorial Office
