Peer review
All original research, inclusive of systematic and other types of reviews, is read first by the Editors-in-Chief, who assign a general priority level:
- Manuscripts to be sent to reviewers immediately;
- Manuscripts to be returned to authors with suggestions for improvement of data presentation prior to further review;
- Manuscripts not suitable for publication in JoGH.
After the submitted manuscripts are approved by the Editors-in-Chief, they undergo a rigorous, single-blinded peer review process, whereby they are sent to at least two external experts. Manuscripts containing statistical analyses are also reviewed by a statistical editor. Based on the reviewers’ suggestions, the editors-in-chief or the handling editors decide whether the manuscript should undergo further revisions, be accepted, or be rejected. As a token of appreciation, we offer reviewers who are ISoGH members a small reimbursement fee for their rigorous peer-review work, their knowledge, dedication, and contribution to JoGH and the global health community. The names of all reviewers are published annually on our website.
Editorials are written by journal editors and do not undergo our standard peer-review process.
Viewpoints are commissioned from or proposed by experts who wish to present their opinions about topics relevant to global health. They are assessed in-house by editors-in-chief, regional editors and/or members of the editorial board for the relevance of the topic and interest to the Journal’s scope and readership.
The submission and review processes are handled in the Open Journal System, an online platform that keeps both the authors’ and the reviewers’ data secure and anonymous. These data are managed according to our privacy statement.
Submissions by JoGH editors
Members of the JoGH Editorial Board are researchers themselves and might submit manuscripts to the Journal for publication. This represents a potential conflict of interest (CoI), especially in cases of submissions from decision-making editors (in the case of JoGH, the Editors-in-Chief). In reviewing these manuscripts, JoGH follows the guidelines for good editorial practice set by international editorial organizations, such as the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Specifically, the review of such manuscripts will not be handled by the submitting editor(s); the process will rather be supervised and the decisions made by a senior editor who will act independently of the other editors. In some cases, the review process will be handled by an outside independent expert to minimise possible bias. These CoIs will be clearly disclosed in the ‘Disclosure of interest’ section of the manuscript in question. Moreover, further relevant details for specific cases will also be covered by and disclosed in the annual Declaration of the CoI by the JoGH’s Editors-in-Chief, as has been the case for the past several years.
Use of AI in peer review
As a long-standing member of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), we subscribe to their criteria on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in peer review, as we strive to maintain the confidentiality of our authors. We therefore discourage our peer reviewers from uploading the manuscripts they are reviewing to any type of AI-based tools in their reviews. Should they use AI in any other way, they should disclose this to the handling editor, maintaining any accountability for the content that the AI in question generated, as it can be incorrect, biased, or incomplete. However, we remain open to understanding and following the progress in the field of AI and taking part in any assessments of how AI can improve practices in scientific publishing, which is likely to happen in the future.
Appeals and complaints
We understand that authors might want to appeal to the rejection by the Editors-in-Chief or reviewers. In such cases, we require them to provide a detailed response to each issue highlighted in the editorial or review process within 30 days of the initial rejection. Rejections or rebuffs of complaints are final.
Complaints raised against JoGH itself or its policies and processes should be addressed to the Editors-in-Chief for further investigation.
Post-publication discussion
We accept comments on published works that seek to constructively add to post-publication discussion. In cases where the handling editors judge them to be sensible and scientifically sound, we will publish them with permanent links to the article they are addressing. The authors of the article for which the letter is being published will be invited to issue a response.
Authorship criteria
JoGH subscribes to the four authorship criteria developed by the ICMJE, whereby all individuals fulfilling the following criteria should be acknowledged as authors:
‘Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
Final approval of the version to be published; AND
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.’
Individuals not meeting these four criteria should be acknowledged in a separate ‘Acknowledgement’ section in your manuscript.
However, we are aware of the limitations of the ICMJE definition and its practical applications. We therefore also find other authorship frameworks such as the CRediT author statement acceptable. Alternatively, we ask our authors to write in their own words why they think they deserve authorship of the submitted manuscript. Irrespective of the final format, the authors’ declared contributions to the research are published at the end of the article.
Upon submission to JoGH, we ask all authors to outline the contributions of each of the authors, describing shared authorships or equal contributions, and assign the corresponding author. We allow for indications of joint first authorship (only for first authors in byline), equal contributions (individuals who are not the first or last authors), and joint senior authorship (last authors in byline). An individual cannot be a first and senior author simultaneously. Lastly, we allow the use of group authorship, where a specific research group is indicated as the last author on the paper, following the senior author. In such cases, a full list of author members and their affiliations should be sent over as a supplement to the manuscript.
We mandate that the first, senior, and corresponding authors submit their ORCID or register and obtain one. We also encourage all other authors to do the same. As a free, permanent identifier, this ORCID will be linked to their published article and its metadata in all databases where JoGH is indexed.
We thoroughly discourage changes to authorship post-submission; however, we are aware that errors can occur during the publication process for varying reasons. In such cases, we will follow the relevant COPE flowcharts and require the author to submit an authorship change form signed by all co-authors, outlining the reason for this change and, in cases of the addition of new authors, their contributions to the manuscript.
We discourage any improper type of authorship attribution, inclusive of ghost or gift authorship. In line with ICMJE recommendations, we also believe that an AI cannot be listed as an author, as they cannot be held or hold responsibility for the ‘accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work’ in question. We require all authors to disclose their use of any AI or large language model (LLM), irrespective of the method of use, and require that they claim accountability for any error or inaccuracy that the AI or LLM in question might produce. The use of generative AI in producing figures, tables, or other materials must be disclosed to the editors-in-chief and will be approved only in cases where there are clearly no infringements of copyright or research integrity. These requirements do not pertain to basic language checking tools (e.g. Grammarly, InstaText, Microsoft Word’s internal spellchecker).
We are also committed to the global struggle against paper mills in scholarly publishing and support the work of the United2Act initiative. We will thoroughly investigate any cases of paper mill activity and undertake actions outlined in COPE flowcharts.
Cases of misconduct
As a member of the COPE, JoGH follows COPE guidelines and flowcharts in resolving in addressing any reports or allegations of misconduct, breaches of research integrity, or fraud. This includes, for example, more serious misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (as defined in the new European Code for Research Integrity), as well as cases of detrimental or poor research practices that negatively impact research findings.
All such cases should be reported to the Editors-in-Chief directly and will be investigated thoroughly in line with COPE flowcharts. In cases where applicable, we will correct the published record by issuing an erratum or, if necessary, retracting the article in cases where there are serious concerns about the validity of its findings. While we cannot exert any punitive actions against the authors whose misconduct has been determined, we will alert their institutions for further action.
Corrections and retractions
In line with ICMJE recommendations, JoGH has mechanisms of issuing both corrections and retractions to published literature.
Corrections are issued for errors to the authors’ byline, metadata, funding statements, and the article content itself in cases where the change does not substantially change the findings and interpretations thereof. In such cases, we publish a correction notice with clear links to the corrected article, outlining who requested the correction and when, what the correction entailed, and whether and when a new version of the article was published. We also revise both the online and PDF version of the article, with the original version being available from the JoGH editorial team upon reasonable request.
In cases where the change substantially affects the findings or interpretations thereof, irrespective of whether the error was accidental (e.g. errors in analytical code) or malicious, we will retract the article in question and publish a detailed retraction notice. In cases of honest errors, where the research underlying the manuscript remains sound after re-analysis, we will provide retraction with republication, provided that the manuscript successfully completes a new editorial and peer review process.
We reserve the right to request raw data from the authors at any point from the submission onwards for further investigation.
Conflicts of interest
We ask that all authors disclose any potential CoIs in relation to their work. They are obliged to submit an ICMJE Disclosure of Interest form alongside their submission, which will be published in the form of a statement at the end of their manuscript.
We also request that reviewers likewise declare if they have any CoIs with the authors of the manuscript they are reviewing (e.g. joint authorship on a recent paper, employment at same institution). In cases such CoIs exist, we will find an alternate reviewer for the manuscript in question.
Any allegations of undisclosed CoIs of which JoGH is made aware will be handled according to COPE flowcharts.
Ethics
We adhere to the highest standards of research ethics and integrity set out by COPE in its Core practices. We mandate all authors to provide statements in their manuscripts on any ethical aspects of their work, such as the inclusion of human or animal subjects, data protection, and others.
For research with human subjects, we require our authors’ research to follow the principles outlined in the most recent Declaration of Helsinki. We require that all clinical trials whose findings are submitted to JoGH have been registered in a public clinical trial registry, such as the ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov or those listed as Primary Registries by the World Health Organization. All our reviewers will be asked a specific question on whether the study satisfies this criterion when assessing each submission. The results of these trials and clininical research in general should be anonymised and deidentified prior to sharing, as outlined in ICMJE guidelines. This information should be disclosed in the abstract and in the ‘Methods’ section of the manuscript.
Additionally, all research including human subjects should be submitted alongside clear proof of ethical approval or waiver from the relevant ethics committee or institutional review board (including registry number), as well as confirmation that the participants have provided informed consent for their inclusion in the study, alongside detailed descriptions of how this consent was obtained and checked. In applicable cases, there should also be a description in the ‘Methods’ section of how personal data collected in the study was anonymised and deidentified. Studies including subjects from marginalised or sensitive groups should provide a detailed methodology of how consent was obtained and a template of the consent form. Studies using animal subjects should follow relevant national, international, or other guidelines, and should also include a clear statement of ethical approval, as outlined for studies with human subjects above.
Ensuring transparency and good research practices
We recommend that all potential authors follow good research practices, both prior to conducting their study and while reporting and sharing their findings.
Aside outlined above, we expect the studies submitted to be preregistered, as appropriate, on registries such as the ISRCTN (for clinical investigations) or PROSPERO (for systematic reviews). All our reviewers will be asked a specific question on whether the study satisfies this criterion when assessing each submission.
We likewise encourage the preregistration of other types of research studies, irrespective of their design, via platforms such as the Open Science Framework. This practice reduces bias in research by mitigating practices such as HARKing and p-hacking, facilitating reproducibility, and helping make science more transparent in general, while still allowing for unplanned, exploratory analyses – as long as these are disclosed as such in the published manuscripts. We encourage readers to inform themselves on this topic prior to initiating their research. If a study has been preregistered, we ask the authors to share the link to the preregistration in their manuscript, so it can be published alongside their article.
We accept the submission of manuscripts which had been shared in preprint form on a repository and allow the sharing of pre-reviewed articles as preprints, as long as this is clearly disclosed in the manuscript and to the editors-in-chief upon submission of the article to JoGH. If the authors’ manuscript is accepted and published, we request that they update the preprint’s metadata with a link to the published article.
We also require the use of proper reporting guidelines and checklists, many of which are available via the EQUATOR Network website. Some of the most common ones are STROBE for observational studies, and any of its extensions and alternative forms such as STROBE-MR for Mendelian randomisation research; CONSORT for randomised trials; PRISMA for systematic reviews; COREQ for qualitative studies; CHEERS for economic evaluations; and others. We remind our authors that these are reporting guidelines used to fully and transparently represent study findings; they should not be used as standalone tools for designing or conducting studies.
The authors should be open to sharing their raw data, analytical code, and other material in a repository, such as Zenodo or the one managed by the Open Science Framework, wherever this is ethical and otherwise appropriate. Other repositories can be found via DataCite or re3data. In sum, any repository is feasible, so long as it adheres to open licenses, has a way of providing persistent identifiers such as the Digital Object Identifier (DOI), and archive its content in a persistent way. In case they used publicly available data, the authors should provide clear statements and links to their sources in a separate section at the end of the manuscript; when allowed by the holders or managers of the source data or its copyright license, we encourage the authors’ to submit their study-specific dataset to a repository, as outlined above. In this sense, we remind our authors that these data should be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR), so that they could be of use to researchers in the future.
Adhering to these practices fosters reproducibility and replicability of research findings; in this sense, we encourage our authors to be open to having their study replicated by others, or replicating other studies using their data or in their context.
Editorial research
We are keen to better understand and improve editorial conduct, decision making, issues related to peer review and communication of science in general. Therefore, we occasionally take part in or conduct editorial research, so that submitted manuscripts and reviewers’ reports might be used in such research. If you do not want your manuscript or your review comments entered into such a study please let us know in your submission letter or agreement to review. Your decision to take part or not will have no effect on the editorial decision on the submitted manuscript.