Peer Review

Journal for Research in Public Health (JRPH)

The Journal for Research in Public Health (JRPH) employs a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure adherence to standards of quality, fairness, and scientific integrity. In this model, the reviewers' identities are concealed from the authors, and the authors' identities are concealed from the reviewers throughout the process.

Flow of the Review Process

Step 1: Initial Assessment (Desk Evaluation)

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or a Handling Editor conducts an initial review to ensure the manuscript is suitable for the journal. A manuscript may be desk rejected without external review if it:

  • does not fall within the Focus and Scope of the journal;
  • fails to adhere to the submission template or readability standards;
  • is insufficiently original or contains fundamental methodological flaws; or
  • shows a high similarity score (plagiarism) in the similarity check.

Step 2: Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are handled by an editor and sent to at least two (2) anonymous reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewers provide comments, critiques, and recommendations based on scientific merit and novelty.

Step 3: Revision and Editorial Decision

The editor-in-charge reviews the anonymous reviewers' comments and recommendations, then makes a decision that is sent to the corresponding author for any necessary action and feedback. The editor's decision is final and may include:

  • Reject: the manuscript will not be published, and authors will not have the opportunity to resubmit the same version to JRPH.
  • Resubmit for Review: the submission has potential but requires significant changes and reworking. It will likely require a second round of review by experts.
  • Accept with Revisions: the manuscript is conditionally accepted, provided that minor or major modifications are made. Revisions will be reviewed by the editorial team before publication.
  • Accept: the manuscript is accepted in its current form, with no further modifications required.

Step 4: Production

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting and layout editing to prepare the final paper for online publication.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • is original, with clearly stated objectives and research gap;
  • is methodologically sound;
  • follows appropriate ethical guidelines;
  • presents results/findings clearly and supports its conclusions with them; and
  • correctly references previous relevant work.

Note: Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.

Time Estimation

JRPH is committed to transparency regarding processing times. The following are the average estimated durations for each stage:

Stage Duration Description
Time to First Decision ~2 weeks Time from submission until the Editor determines whether to send the manuscript for review or issue a desk rejection.
Review Time ~8 weeks Time allotted for reviewers to evaluate the manuscript and submit their recommendations.
Production & Publication ~12 weeks Total average time from submission to the final decision and online publication.

Correspondence

  • All correspondence concerning manuscripts should be directed to the Editor of JRPH at jrphstrada@gmail.com.
  • The Editor will direct all correspondence to the Lead/Corresponding Author.
  • The Lead Author is responsible for sharing communications with all co-authors.
  • Beyond communication concerning the review, accepted manuscripts may require additional correspondence to complete copyediting and layout editing.

Becoming a Reviewer

If you would like to be added to the list of JRPH reviewers, please contact us at jrphstrada@gmail.com. Benefits of reviewing for JRPH include the opportunity to evaluate the latest work in a related research area at an early stage, acknowledgment in the journal's list of reviewers, and the possibility of citing your reviewing activity as part of professional development requirements. JRPH reviewers are volunteers who contribute their expertise to science; therefore, no financial payments are made.