Journal of Human Health Research
Editor Guidelines
Standards, responsibilities and best practices for members of the JHHR Editorial Board — grounded in scientific merit and independent of any commercial consideration.
At a glance
- Editorial assignment response
- Within 48 hours
- Initial peer review target
- 2–4 weeks
- Ethics framework
- COPE guidelines
- Decision categories
- Accept · Minor Revision · Major Revision · Reject
The Role of Editors
Editors oversee the fair, independent and rigorous scholarly assessment of manuscripts. They evaluate scope and methodological soundness, select qualified independent reviewers, consider reviewer reports and explain editorial decisions clearly. Editorial judgment is based on scientific merit and remains independent of fees, services, memberships or roles.
Core Responsibilities
Initial evaluation
Scope and quality screening
Upon receiving a manuscript assignment, editors first assess whether the submission falls within JHHR's scope. This initial screening evaluates originality, basic methodological soundness, and potential contribution to human health research. Manuscripts outside the journal’s scope or minimum requirements may be declined before external review, with a clear reason provided.
Reviewer selection
Identifying qualified, unconflicted reviewers
Editors identify at least two independent experts with relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest, considering geographic and institutional diversity where possible. Before inviting reviewers, editors confirm they have no personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors that could bias their assessment.
Timeline management
Keeping the review cycle moving
Editors monitor reviewer responses and send reminders for overdue reviews; if a reviewer becomes unresponsive, an alternative is promptly identified. JHHR aims to complete the initial peer review within 2–4 weeks, and editors respond to editorial assignments within 48 hours to avoid bottlenecks. Delays are communicated to authors proactively.
Decision making
Merit-based, reviewer-informed decisions
Editorial decisions are based on the scientific merit of the manuscript, synthesizing reviewer feedback with the editor's own assessment. Decisions are Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject, with clear, actionable feedback explaining the rationale. When reviewers disagree, editors weigh the arguments and may seek additional review or make an independent judgment based on their own expertise.
Health Research Evaluation Criteria
When evaluating manuscripts for JHHR, editors consider the following domain-specific criteria for health research.
- Study design
- Is the research methodology appropriate for the research question? Are the study design, sample size, and statistical approaches suitable?
- Population and setting
- Are the study population and healthcare setting clearly described? Is there adequate generalizability of findings?
- Outcome measures
- Are health outcomes appropriately defined and measured using validated instruments or established criteria?
- Ethical considerations
- Does the study comply with ethical standards for human subjects research, including IRB/ethics committee approval?
- Clinical significance
- Do the findings have meaningful implications for patient care, public health policy, or clinical practice?
- Reproducibility
- Are methods described in sufficient detail for replication by other researchers?
- Limitations
- Are study limitations honestly acknowledged and their potential impact on findings discussed?
Ethical Oversight
Editors must be vigilant in upholding publication ethics throughout the review process.
- Plagiarism detection
- Ensure all manuscripts undergo plagiarism screening; report suspected plagiarism to the Editor-in-Chief.
- Conflict of interest and recusal
- Declare and recuse yourself from manuscripts involving your own work, your institution, close collaborators, or any significant personal, academic or financial competing interest. Notify the Editor-in-Chief so an independent editor can be assigned where practicable.
- Confidentiality
- Treat all manuscript information as confidential; do not share content or discuss submissions with unauthorized parties.
- Fabrication and falsification
- Report any suspected data fabrication, falsification, or image manipulation to the Editor-in-Chief immediately.
- Authorship disputes
- Refer authorship disputes to the Editor-in-Chief for investigation according to COPE guidelines.
- Duplicate submission
- Be alert to signs of simultaneous submission to multiple journals, which violates publication ethics.
COPE guidelines
JHHR adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for best practice in publication ethics. Editors are expected to familiarize themselves with COPE's core practices and flowcharts for handling ethical issues. When ethical concerns arise, editors consult with the Editor-in-Chief and refer to COPE resources for guidance on an appropriate response.
Communication Standards
Professional, respectful communication is essential throughout the editorial process.
- Respond to editorial assignments within 48 hours, either accepting or declining based on expertise and availability.
- Send reminder notices to reviewers approaching deadlines, and personally follow up with unresponsive reviewers.
- Provide authors with timely updates on manuscript status, especially if delays occur.
- Frame decision letters constructively, offering actionable guidance for revision even when rejecting a manuscript.
- Maintain a professional tone in all correspondence, avoiding personal criticism of authors or reviewers.
- Escalate concerns or complex situations to the Editor-in-Chief promptly.
Working with Reviewers
Editors play a mentorship role in developing the reviewer community. When assigning reviews, editors provide clear instructions and expectations, evaluate reviewer performance, and give feedback to help improve the quality of reviews. Outstanding reviewers are acknowledged through JHHR's recognition practices (see Reviewer Guidelines). When a review is inadequate or late, editors provide constructive feedback while maintaining a positive relationship for future invitations.
Questions for the Editorial Office?
For guidance on specific cases or general inquiries, contact the JHHR Editorial Office.