Confidentiality
Treat all manuscript content as confidential. Do not share, discuss, or use information from manuscripts under review.
Journal of Human Health Research
Reviewer Guidelines
Standards and best practices for peer reviewers contributing to JHHR — your evaluation helps editors reach informed, evidence-based decisions.
The Reviewer's Role
Peer reviewers serve as the quality assurance system for scientific publishing. At JHHR, reviewers evaluate manuscripts for scientific validity, methodological soundness, and contribution to human health knowledge. Your role is to provide constructive, unbiased feedback that helps editors make informed decisions and helps authors improve their work — whether or not the manuscript is ultimately accepted. Reviews should be thorough yet timely, completed within 2 weeks of acceptance.
Accepting Review Invitations
Before accepting a review invitation, consider the following.
- Expertise match
- Ensure the manuscript falls within your area of expertise. If only partially qualified, inform the editor of your specific expertise areas.
- Conflicts of interest
- Decline if you have personal, professional, or financial relationships with any authors. Report potential conflicts immediately.
- Availability
- Confirm you can complete the review within the deadline (typically 2 weeks). If unable to meet the timeline, decline promptly so alternative reviewers can be invited.
- Prior knowledge
- Decline if you have seen or reviewed the manuscript previously, unless the editor is aware and requests your continued involvement.
Health Research Evaluation Criteria
When reviewing manuscripts for JHHR, apply the following criteria specific to health and medical research.
Scientific validity
Assess whether the research question is clearly defined and significant, and whether methodology is rigorous enough to support the conclusions drawn.
Methodology
Evaluate study design, sample size and statistical power, recruitment and selection procedures, and whether data-collection instruments are valid and reliable.
Results and analysis
Verify results follow logically from the methods, statistical analyses are appropriate, tables and figures are clear and necessary, and there is no selective outcome reporting.
Clinical significance
Assess the practical importance of findings for patient care or public health, considering effect size and generalizability, not just statistical significance.
Ethical Considerations
Health research requires rigorous ethical oversight. Reviewers should verify the following.
- IRB / ethics approval
- Confirm that human subjects research received appropriate institutional review board or ethics committee approval.
- Informed consent
- Verify that appropriate informed-consent procedures were followed for human participants research.
- Privacy and confidentiality
- Ensure patient privacy is protected and identifiable health information is appropriately de-identified.
- Vulnerable populations
- If the study involves children, prisoners, pregnant women, or other vulnerable groups, verify additional protections were implemented.
- Animal research
- For studies involving animals, confirm compliance with relevant ethical guidelines and institutional protocols.
- Clinical trial registration
- For randomized controlled trials, verify prospective registration in an appropriate registry.
Structuring Your Review
Effective reviews are organized and actionable.
Summary
A brief paragraph summarizing the manuscript's aims and your overall assessment of its strengths and weaknesses.
Major comments
Fundamental issues affecting the validity or interpretation of the research — methodological flaws, unsupported conclusions, or significant omissions.
Minor comments
Issues related to clarity, presentation, and formatting, with suggestions for improving readability and organization.
Recommendation
A clear recommendation — Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject — with justification aligned to your comments.
Constructive feedback
Reviews should be constructive, specific, and respectful. Critique the science, not the authors. Provide actionable suggestions for improvement rather than vague criticism — even when recommending rejection, offer feedback that helps authors improve future submissions.
Ethical Conduct for Reviewers
Objectivity
Avoid bias based on authors' gender, nationality, institution, or prior work. Judge manuscripts solely on scientific merit.
Timeliness
Complete reviews within the agreed deadline. Notify the editor promptly if you cannot meet the timeline.
Disclosure
Report any conflicts or competing interests. Do not review manuscripts from close colleagues or collaborators.
Self-citation
Do not suggest inclusion of your own work unless genuinely relevant. Excessive self-citation requests are inappropriate.
Misconduct reporting
Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical violations to the editor immediately.
Review Timeline and Recognition
JHHR values your time and aims to keep the review process efficient. When you accept a review invitation, please plan to complete your evaluation within 2 weeks; if circumstances prevent timely completion, notify the editor immediately so alternative arrangements can be made. Reviewers who consistently meet deadlines are given priority for future review invitations.
JHHR recognizes the contribution of peer reviewers through annual acknowledgment in the journal and certificates of contribution; outstanding reviewers may be invited to join the Editorial Board (see Editor Guidelines for that role). Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of a reviewer's own submissions to the journal — every manuscript, including a reviewer's own, is assessed independently on scientific merit.
Questions About Your Review?
Contact the JHHR Editorial Office for guidance on specific manuscripts or the review process.