Journal of Public Health International

Journal of Public Health International

Journal of Public Health International – Editor Resources

Open Access & Peer-Reviewed

Submit Manuscript

Editor Resources & Tools

Essential resources to support your editorial work

Welcome, Editors!

This page provides you with essential tools, templates, guidelines, and resources to support your editorial responsibilities. Whether you're a new editor or an experienced member of our board, these resources will help you maintain the highest standards of scientific integrity and editorial excellence.

Quick Access Resources

Editorial Decision Templates

✅ Accept Decision Template

Subject: Manuscript [ID] - Accepted for Publication

Dear Dr. [Author Name],

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript titled "[Title]" has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Public Health International.

The reviewers and I found your work to be of high quality and a valuable contribution to the field. Your manuscript will now proceed to copyediting and production.

Next Steps:
- You will receive proofs for review within 2-3 weeks
- Please review and return proofs within 48 hours
- Your article will be published online shortly after proof approval

Congratulations on this achievement!

? Minor Revisions Template

Subject: Manuscript [ID] - Minor Revisions Required

Dear Dr. [Author Name],

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "[Title]" to the Journal of Public Health International. After careful review, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript shows promise and requires minor revisions before acceptance.

Key Strengths:
- [List 2-3 strengths identified by reviewers]

Required Revisions:
- [List specific revisions needed]
- Please address all reviewer comments in a point-by-point response letter

Deadline: Please submit your revised manuscript within 3 weeks.

We look forward to receiving your revised submission.

? Major Revisions Template

Subject: Manuscript [ID] - Major Revisions Required

Dear Dr. [Author Name],

Your manuscript "[Title]" has been reviewed, and while the topic is of interest, major revisions are required before it can be reconsidered for publication.

Major Concerns:
- [List primary methodological or analytical issues]
- [Specify what additional analyses or data are needed]

Requirements for Resubmission:
- Address all reviewer comments comprehensively
- Provide a detailed point-by-point response letter
- Highlight all changes in the revised manuscript

Deadline: 6 weeks from this notice. The revised manuscript will undergo another round of peer review.

Please contact us if you have questions about the required revisions.

❌ Reject Decision Template

Subject: Manuscript [ID] - Decision on Submission

Dear Dr. [Author Name],

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "[Title]" to the Journal of Public Health International. After careful consideration, I regret to inform you that we are unable to accept your manuscript for publication.

Reasons for Decision:
- [Provide specific, constructive feedback]
- [Explain why the manuscript doesn't meet publication standards]

Suggestions for Improvement:
- [Offer constructive guidance for strengthening the work]

We appreciate your interest in our journal and wish you success in publishing this work elsewhere.

Key Resources & Links

Evaluation Checklist for Editors

Initial Desk Review Checklist

  • ☐ Manuscript falls within journal scope
  • ☐ Appropriate article type selected
  • ☐ Abstract is structured and complete
  • ☐ Word count within limits
  • ☐ References properly formatted
  • ☐ Ethics approval documented (if applicable)
  • ☐ Plagiarism check completed (< 15% similarity)
  • ☐ All required sections present
  • ☐ Figures and tables properly labeled
  • ☐ Author affiliations and ORCID provided

Scientific Quality Assessment

  • ☐ Research question clearly stated
  • ☐ Methodology appropriate and rigorous
  • ☐ Sample size adequate and justified
  • ☐ Statistical analysis appropriate
  • ☐ Results clearly presented
  • ☐ Discussion addresses limitations
  • ☐ Conclusions supported by data
  • ☐ Novel contribution to the field
  • ☐ References current and relevant
  • ☐ Writing clear and professional

Ethical Considerations

  • ☐ IRB/Ethics approval obtained
  • ☐ Informed consent documented
  • ☐ Conflicts of interest declared
  • ☐ Funding sources disclosed
  • ☐ Author contributions specified
  • ☐ Data availability statement included
  • ☐ No evidence of plagiarism or duplication
  • ☐ Proper attribution of prior work
  • ☐ Vulnerable populations protected
  • ☐ Animal welfare standards met (if applicable)

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I access the editorial management system?

Contact the editorial office at [email protected] to request your login credentials. You'll receive a username and password along with instructions for accessing the system. If you encounter any technical issues, our support team is available to assist you.

What should I do if I suspect research misconduct?

Immediately contact the Editor-in-Chief via the editorial office. Do not communicate directly with the authors about your concerns. Follow COPE flowcharts for guidance on handling suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or other ethical violations. All allegations are investigated confidentially and thoroughly.

How do I find qualified reviewers?

Look for experts who have published in the manuscript's topic area, check author references for potential reviewers, use your professional network, and consult our reviewer database. Ensure reviewers have no conflicts of interest and represent diverse geographic and institutional backgrounds. Aim for 2-3 reviewers per manuscript.

What if reviewers provide conflicting recommendations?

Use your expert judgment to weigh the reviewers' comments. Consider the specificity and validity of each reviewer's concerns. You may seek an additional reviewer's opinion if needed. Your editorial decision should synthesize the reviews while applying your own expertise. You are not obligated to follow reviewer recommendations if you disagree with sound reasoning.

How long should the review process take?

Target timeline: Desk review (5-7 days), peer review (14-21 days), editorial decision (3-5 days after receiving reviews). Total time from submission to first decision should be 4-6 weeks. Send reminders to reviewers if they're approaching deadlines. Contact the editorial office if you need assistance expediting the process.

Need Additional Support?

Our editorial office is here to support you. Don't hesitate to reach out with questions, concerns, or requests for assistance.

Email: [email protected]