Journal of Public Health International

Editor's Guidelines

The editor is responsible for maintaining the standards for evaluating and approving manuscripts submitted to a scholarly journal. We believe that most of the guidelines provided are well understood and followed by experienced scholars and researchers. However, they can be very helpful for those who are new to editorial responsibilities.

Manuscript Evaluation Checklist

In the evaluation process, it is crucial to confirm the existence of these qualifications to maintain the high standard of excellence for the manuscript.

Title:

The information provided should be easily comprehensible, clear, concise, informative, and relevant to the subject matter under consideration.

Abstract:

The hypothesis should be clear and concise, and the problem statement should be included in the first paragraph, typically in the final sentence. While abstract word limits can be negotiable, it is crucial to ensure that the hypothesis is thoroughly checked.
The methodology should be clearly identified and briefly described.
Results should be summarized, including necessary data and statistics.
Conclusions and findings must be clearly stated.

Introduction:

The introduction should be reviewed for the following:

Early introduction of the general problem
Precisely stated questions that are to be answered
Clear and concise hypothesis
Reachability of the problem
Preciseness of the hypothesis
Identification of the assumption of the study
Operational identification of pertinent terms
The significance of the problem discussed
Justification of the research
Brief summary of relevant literature and its implications for the research problem under study
Relevance of the citation and its pertinence to the research problem including the time factor.
Citations must provide a rationale for research and should also be a primary source.
The relationship of the problem to previous research should also be made clear.

Methods and Materials

The subject population should be described.
If the subjects are humans or the sample was drawn from humans it is mandatory to obtain informed consent or institutional review board approval. Please check for the necessary.
If the subjects were animals, were appropriate standards of human care followed, with animal care review committee approval?

The following statement must be contained if animals were utilized:

All animals received care in compliance with the “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH Publication 85-23, revised 1985.)
Justification of the sampling method.
The method of data collection must permit sufficient for the judgment of their appropriateness for the study presented.
Appropriate design to study the hypothesis or questions.
Inclusion of proper controls where appropriate.
Variables should be mentioned unambiguously and identified.
Replication of the design should be explicit enough to be replicated.
Appropriateness of the statistical tests used. Appropriateness of the tests to the design.
(If you are unsure of the adequacy of statistical test selection please make note of it on the ‘Comments by Editor’ form and a statistical consult will be made.)

Results must contain:

Clear and precise and logically organized output.
Sufficient information to answer the research question.
Statistics reports with values. (where applicable)
Statistics is relevant to the research hypothesis.
Complete, easily understandable tables and figures.

Data is reported either in table format or in a figure. (If data is listed in the table, then a figure with the same data should not be included, and vice versa. if there is significant data consider asking the authors to include the descriptive data in table format in an addendum to the paper).

Discussion must contain:

Clearly stated conclusions.
Substantial evidence for the conclusion presented.
Revisited hypothesis.
Discussion of the implicated findings.
Proper generalization of the research with respect to the population studied. (ex: results from laboratory study cannot be used for clinical practice)
Description of possible sources of sampling bias or errors.
Relevance and reliability of the previous research data presented.
Valid data and its report of pertinence to the present study.
Identification of problems and limitations of the study and their discussion.
The suggestion of future research recommendation.

Conclusion:

An end paragraph of the discussion section. A summary paragraph can also be added before the conclusion paragraph if necessary.

References:

They must be organized and in the required style of the journal. Primary sources (journals) are preferable to secondary sources (textbooks) for citations.

As a general rule, manuscripts should contain significant references to previously published work to support the discussion.

Although no standard is set, it is generally accepted that the reference numbers meet the style of the paper. Please refer to the chart below for reference numbers. These are ‘general’ guidelines.

Manuscript Style	Reference Number
Clinical Scientific	20 to 30
Laboratory Scientific	20 to 30
Case Report	3 to 10
How To	3 to 10
Review	50 to 150

Tables and figures:

Tables and Figures should represent the results in a clear and concise format. Good pictographic representation is expected. Use of the advanced technology and the available 2D and 3D formats can enhance the readability of the figures. But in no way the pictures should be manipulated just to match the results without relevance. Histograms and bar diagrams are also to be presented in an interesting manner. Even a video clip of limited size can also be included if it provides a stronger base.

Form and Style:

The report must be clear.
The report must be logically organized.
The tone should be impartial, unbiased, and scientific.
Follow instructions for author format (else can be sent for revision to the required format)
Must contain keywords.

Few important guidelines:

The above are the necessary steps that are to be taken care of and are to be strictly considered while evaluating a manuscript. Note down the errors or comments with respect to the line numbers on the page and present both the error and the correction; subheading in case of comments.
Please do not hesitate to give an impartial review. A number of revisions can be addressed until the desired quality is achieved.
Please reject the manuscripts which do not fall under the scope of the journal without a review.
In case of rejection please state the reason clearly and guide them for further action if required. (Ex: if the rejection is due to improper language and a good subject you can suggest them for language editing. If the rejection is due to the subject which is out of scope state it)
Adhere to the quality of language. It must be understandable by readers all over the world.

Ethical Obligations: