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.
At a glance
- Review completion target
- Normally within two weeks of accepting the review invitation
- Recommendation categories
- Accept · Minor Revision · Major Revision · Reject
- Confidentiality
- Manuscript material is confidential and may be shared or discussed only with prior editor permission
The Reviewer's Role
Reviewers provide independent expert assessment to support editorial decisions. They evaluate scientific validity, methodological soundness, clarity and relevance to human health, and provide evidence-based comments for the editor and authors. Reviews should normally be completed within two weeks of accepting the invitation; the target depends on manuscript complexity and any arrangement agreed with the editor.
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.
- Competing interests
- Declare any potential personal, professional, academic or financial competing interest to the editor, who will determine whether the review may proceed.
- Availability
- Confirm that you can normally complete the review within two weeks or another period agreed with the editor. If not, decline promptly so another reviewer may 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
Reviewers assess what the manuscript reports and alert the editor to missing information or concerns; they do not independently certify that approval or consent occurred.
- IRB / ethics approval
- Check that the manuscript reports appropriate institutional review board or ethics-committee approval, or a documented waiver where applicable.
- Informed consent
- Check that the manuscript reports informed consent or a documented ethics-committee waiver where applicable.
- Privacy and confidentiality
- Check that privacy safeguards and appropriate de-identification are reported.
- Vulnerable populations
- Check that the manuscript reports appropriate additional safeguards for vulnerable participants.
- Animal research
- Check that institutional animal-ethics approval, applicable welfare standards and relevant reporting guidance are reported.
- Clinical trial registration
- Check that prospective trial registration is reported where applicable.
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
Confidentiality
Manuscript material is confidential and must not be shared, discussed or used without prior permission from the editor.
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
Declare any potential competing interest to the editor, who will determine whether the review may proceed.
Co-reviewing
Involving a student or colleague requires prior editor approval. The contributor must be named to the editor, agree to confidentiality and be disclosed in the review record.
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 independence
The normal review target is two weeks after the invitation is accepted. If manuscript complexity or other circumstances require more time, notify the editor promptly so a revised deadline or another reviewer can be arranged.
Peer review is voluntary scholarly service. Reviewing does not confer an editorial appointment or any advantage in the review or acceptance of a reviewer’s own submissions; those manuscripts are assessed independently on scientific merit.
Questions About Your Review?
Contact the JHHR Editorial Office for guidance on specific manuscripts or the review process.