Peer Reviewers

Reviewer Standards and Responsibilities

Journal of Public Health and Pharmacy (JPHP) recognizes the essential role of peer reviewers in maintaining scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, transparent reporting, and the relevance of published research to public health and pharmacy in public health.

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process by independent reviewers with appropriate subject, professional, or methodological expertise.

1. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to manuscript-specific expertise, publication or research experience, methodological competence, independence, availability, and the absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

The Editorial Office may also consider previous review quality, timeliness, professional conduct, responsiveness, and familiarity with applicable reporting and ethical standards.

Reviewer expertise may include epidemiology, health education and behavioral science, environmental health and occupational safety, health administration and policy, reproductive health, health economics and cost-effectiveness analysis, the role of pharmacy in public health, or another field relevant to the submitted manuscript.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, independently, and constructively.
• Assess originality, scientific contribution, methodology, analysis, interpretation, reporting quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the JPHP Focus and Scope.
• Evaluate whether the conclusions are supported by the data, analysis, and study design.
• Identify major methodological, analytical, ethical, reporting, or interpretative concerns.
• Provide specific, clear, and actionable recommendations.
• Distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions.
• Complete the review within the assigned deadline or promptly request an extension.
• Maintain the confidentiality of manuscript materials and editorial correspondence.
• Declare relevant conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment.
• Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, unethical research, peer-review manipulation, or other integrity concerns confidentially to the editor.
• Avoid personal criticism, discriminatory language, coercive citation, hostile wording, and unsupported allegations.
• Not use unpublished information for personal, academic, institutional, commercial, or competitive advantage.

3. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, supplementary files, datasets, figures, reviewer reports, author responses, editorial decisions, and editorial correspondence are confidential.

Reviewers must not share manuscript content with unauthorized persons, discuss the manuscript outside the review process, disclose information obtained during peer review, or retain manuscript files for purposes unrelated to the assigned review.

A reviewer who requires assistance from a colleague, trainee, or specialist must obtain prior permission from the editor. Any approved contributor must also comply with the journal's confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

4. Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, data, images, tables, supplementary files, author responses, or unpublished information to public generative artificial-intelligence systems or other external platforms that may store, process, reuse, or disclose the submitted content.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, independence, confidentiality, fairness, originality, and integrity of their assessments. Artificial intelligence must not replace independent scholarly judgment.

5. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline or disclose an assignment when a relationship, activity, or interest could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their judgment.

Relevant conflicts may include:

• Current or recent collaboration with an author
• Employment at the same institution or organizational unit
• Personal, family, supervisory, mentoring, or professional relationships
• Financial, commercial, consultancy, or intellectual-property interests
• Direct academic, professional, or commercial competition
• Prior involvement in the design, conduct, analysis, writing, or submission of the study
• Strong personal, institutional, ideological, or professional positions directly related to the manuscript

When uncertainty exists, reviewers should disclose the relevant circumstances to the editor before accepting the review assignment.

6. Review Report Standards

A review report should:

• Provide a concise overall assessment of the manuscript.
• Identify the principal strengths and limitations.
• Distinguish major concerns from minor corrections.
• Assess whether the research question is relevant and clearly defined.
• Assess whether the study design and analytical methods are appropriate.
• Evaluate the validity, reliability, and transparency of the reported methods.
• Determine whether the results are reported accurately and completely.
• Assess whether conclusions are supported by the evidence.
• Identify missing methodological, ethical, statistical, or reporting information.
• Evaluate adherence to applicable reporting guidelines.
• Provide respectful, evidence-based, and actionable recommendations.
• Recommend citations only when they are directly relevant and scientifically necessary.

Reviewers should not require authors to cite the reviewer's publications unless those publications are directly relevant and necessary to improve the scientific accuracy or completeness of the manuscript.

Confidential comments to the editor should not contradict comments provided to the authors unless confidentiality is necessary to report an ethical, legal, integrity, or conflict-of-interest concern.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the responsible editor after considering the review reports, manuscript quality, methodological validity, ethical compliance, author responses, journal policies, and relevance to the JPHP Focus and Scope.

The editor may accept, reject, request revision, seek additional review, or reach a decision that differs from an individual reviewer recommendation when justified by the complete editorial record.

8. Reviewer Recognition

JPHP may recognize reviewer contributions through reviewer certificates, acknowledgment letters, verified service records, or an annual reviewer acknowledgment.

9. Becoming a Reviewer

Researchers interested in reviewing for JPHP may provide:

• Full name and institutional affiliation
• Official institutional email address
• ORCID identifier
• Academic qualifications
• Subject and methodological expertise
• Relevant professional or research experience
• Recent publications or an academic profile
• Scopus Author ID, Web of Science Researcher Profile, or another verifiable scholarly profile where available

Registration or expression of interest does not guarantee selection. Reviewer appointments are made according to manuscript needs, expertise, independence, availability, previous performance, and editorial assessment.