Reviewer Guidelines

For Reviewers
Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers play a central role in maintaining the scientific quality, credibility, and integrity of Horizon of Public Health Sciences (HoPHS). Reviews should be independent, evidence-based, constructive, confidential, and focused on helping editors make fair decisions while helping authors strengthen the scholarly quality of their work.

Double-Blind Review Model
14 Calendar Days Expected Review Period
Confidential Manuscript & Review
Independent Editorial Assessment
Before Accepting an Invitation
Confirm expertise, availability, and independence

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they have sufficient subject or methodological expertise, can provide an objective assessment, and can complete the review within the requested time. If these conditions cannot be met, reviewers should decline promptly so that another reviewer can be invited.

Relevant Expertise

Accept only manuscripts for which you can evaluate the principal scientific questions, methods, analyses, or interpretation. If your expertise covers only part of the manuscript, inform the editor.

Availability

HoPHS expects a completed review within 14 calendar days after acceptance of the review invitation. If additional time is required, contact the editor before the deadline.

Independence

Review the manuscript impartially and solely on its scientific merit. Personal, institutional, professional, ideological, financial, or competitive considerations must not influence the assessment.

Competing Interests
Disclose conflicts before reviewing

A potential conflict does not always disqualify a reviewer, but it must be disclosed to the editor before the review begins. The editor will determine whether the reviewer should proceed.

Recent collaboration Shared institutional affiliation Personal or family relationship Financial interest Direct academic competition Supervisory or mentoring relationship Strong personal or professional bias
When in doubt, disclose. Reviewers should not attempt to decide independently that a conflict is insignificant. Provide the relevant information confidentially to the handling editor.
Confidentiality
Treat submitted manuscripts as privileged material

Manuscripts, supplementary files, editorial correspondence, reviewer reports, and information obtained through peer review are confidential. They must not be disclosed, distributed, discussed, photographed, copied, retained for unrelated purposes, or used for personal, professional, commercial, or research advantage.

Do not share the manuscript
Do not involve a colleague, trainee, student, statistician, or other person in the review without prior permission from the editor. Any approved contributor must also comply with confidentiality requirements.
Do not identify the authors
HoPHS uses double-blind review. Reviewers should not actively search for the authors' identities. If an identity becomes apparent inadvertently, continue objectively and inform the editor if this creates a conflict.
Review Criteria
What reviewers should evaluate

Reviews should assess both scientific validity and the manuscript's contribution to public-health knowledge. Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions that affect validity or interpretation and optional suggestions intended only to improve presentation.

1. Relevance & Contribution

Is the research question important and clearly stated? Does the work fit HoPHS and offer meaningful evidence, insight, replication value, or practical relevance to public health?

2. Methods & Analytical Rigor

Are the design, population, sampling, measurement, data collection, analytical methods, and statistical procedures appropriate, sufficiently described, and capable of addressing the study objective?

3. Results & Transparency

Are results reported accurately and completely? Are denominators, effect estimates, uncertainty, missing data, tables, figures, and supplementary information presented transparently?

4. Interpretation

Are conclusions supported by the results? Does the discussion acknowledge limitations, uncertainty, relevant alternative explanations, generalizability, and implications without overstating findings?

5. Ethics & Research Integrity

Are ethics approval, consent, registration, data availability, funding, conflicts of interest, and other relevant integrity requirements appropriately reported? Are there potential ethical concerns?

6. Reporting & Presentation

Is the manuscript logically organized and sufficiently clear? Is the relevant reporting guideline followed? Are references appropriate and balanced, and are tables and figures necessary and interpretable?

Writing the Review
Be specific, constructive, and actionable

A strong review explains the reasoning behind concerns and provides authors with a clear path to address valid scientific issues. Review the work, not the authors. Avoid dismissive, hostile, sarcastic, discriminatory, or personally directed language.

1. Brief overall assessment
Summarize the research question, principal contribution, and overall strengths and limitations in a short paragraph.
2. Major comments
Prioritize issues affecting validity, methods, interpretation, reporting completeness, ethics, or the main conclusions. Number major comments and explain why each issue matters.
3. Minor comments
Identify focused improvements to clarity, terminology, tables, figures, references, or presentation. Avoid unnecessary stylistic rewriting.
4. Confidential comments to the editor
Use this field for sensitive concerns, suspected misconduct, undisclosed conflicts, or information relevant to the editorial decision that should not be communicated directly to the authors.
Recommendation Categories
Select the recommendation that best reflects the review

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The handling editor or Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision after considering the review reports, the manuscript, journal policies, and any additional expert assessment.

Accept Submission

The manuscript is scientifically sound and publishable in its current form, apart from negligible editorial corrections.

Revisions Required

The manuscript is potentially publishable after limited, clearly addressable revisions that do not require major redesign or re-analysis.

Resubmit for Review

Substantial revisions, clarification, additional analysis, or restructuring are necessary and the revised manuscript should undergo another review round.

Decline Submission

Fundamental problems with validity, ethics, scope, originality, interpretation, or reporting cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

These labels correspond to the standard OJS recommendation workflow used by HoPHS. Reviewers should ensure that the written report is consistent with the recommendation selected.
Research & Publication Integrity
If you suspect misconduct

Reviewers may encounter suspected plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts, unethical research, authorship concerns, citation manipulation, or other possible breaches of research integrity.

Do not investigate or accuse the authors directly. Report the concern confidentially to the handling editor, identify the specific section or evidence that prompted the concern, and allow the journal to assess the matter under its publication-ethics procedures. Reviewers should not contact the authors, their institutions, or third parties about the allegation.
Artificial Intelligence
AI use during peer review
HoPHS confidentiality rule

Reviewers must not upload a submitted manuscript, manuscript excerpts, tables, figures, supplementary files, unpublished data, editorial correspondence, or identifiable review material to public or third-party generative-AI systems when confidentiality, data retention, or reuse cannot be assured.

If a reviewer wishes to use AI-assisted technology for a limited review-related task, prior permission from the journal must be obtained and the reviewer must ensure that confidentiality is protected. Any permitted material AI assistance must be disclosed to the editor. AI output must never replace the reviewer's own expert judgment, and the reviewer remains fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, originality, and integrity of the report.

Review Timeline
A timely review is part of responsible peer review
Invitation
Respond promptly Accept only if you have appropriate expertise, independence, and sufficient time.
Review
Within 14 calendar days Submit a complete, constructive report through the HoPHS OJS review workflow.
Delay
Contact the editor Request an extension as early as possible rather than submitting a rushed or incomplete review.
Final Review Check
Before submitting your review
Conflict of interest disclosed Confidentiality maintained Scientific criteria evaluated Major and minor comments separated Comments are respectful and actionable Misconduct concerns sent only to editor AI policy followed Recommendation matches report

Reviewers are advisers to the editorial team. The final decision on publication rests with the journal's editors. HoPHS values rigorous review, professional judgment, transparent reasoning, and respectful scholarly dialogue.