Journal of Human Health Research
Standards, responsibilities and best practices for members of the JHHR Editorial Board — grounded in scientific merit and independent of any commercial consideration.
JHHR editors serve as gatekeepers of scientific quality, ensuring that published research contributes meaningfully to human health knowledge. Editors evaluate manuscripts for originality, methodological soundness, and significance to the field. They facilitate the peer review process by selecting qualified reviewers, managing timelines, and synthesizing feedback into constructive editorial decisions. Editors must balance rigorous standards with fairness and timeliness, providing authors with transparent communication throughout the review process.
Initial evaluation
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 that clearly fall outside scope or have fundamental flaws are desk-rejected with constructive feedback to help authors find a more suitable venue or improve their work.
Reviewer selection
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
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
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.
When evaluating manuscripts for JHHR, editors consider the following domain-specific criteria for health research.
Editors must be vigilant in upholding publication ethics throughout the review process.
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.
Professional, respectful communication is essential throughout the editorial process.
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.
For guidance on specific cases or general inquiries, contact the JHHR Editorial Office.