|
A clear and effective blind peer review process is a top priority and commitment of the JHIPH editorial board to achieve a high academic quality of our publications. The corresponding author submits the paper to the journal via an online system on https://jhiphalexu.journals.ekb.eg or occasionally the JHIPH may accept submissions by email to jhiph@alexu.edu.eg. All submissions are checked for plagiarism by ithenticate before being further handled. Submitted papers are initially evaluated by the chief editor. If the manuscript deems scientifically sound, sufficiently original, well presented, and within the scope of the journal, it is selected for peer review. Papers that lack conformity with the editorial requirements explicitly explained in the author guidelines are declined for reviewing. All articles selected for peer review are reviewed by at least two independent national or international referees appointed by the editorial board and who are qualified experts in the subject field. To ensure scientific integrity and for constructive unbiased appraisal designed to maintain a high standard of publication, the process is blind throughout the whole process. Two academic reviewers are invited to review the article and provide comments as well as indications on whether the paper should be considered for publication or not. They choose among the following options either accepted, accepted after modification, needs to be revised by a biostatistician, needs to be modified and reviewed again, or rejected. Reviewers' recommendations are taken into consideration by the editors before making an overall decision. Papers accepted by only one of the two reviewers or if the reviews differ widely, the chief editor will invite another referee for reviewing the manuscript. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested, a follow-up review might be done by the chief editor. The chief editor has also the right for advising on improvements and re-structuring of papers. Papers rejected by both reviewers are sent back to the authors with the commentaries provided and indications as to whether they can be re-submitted or submitted elsewhere. All decisions related to the submitted manuscripts are communicated by the chief editor to the corresponding author. Authors timely receive written notifications of status, comments, and assessment of their articles. Accepted papers are eventually sent for production. A proof is sent to the authors before the final publication, which must be returned promptly. To ensure that the paper is properly reviewed and published quickly, peer reviewers are asked to respond in a timely fashion and submit their comments within 15 working days to avoid unnecessary delays in the process. The time from paper submission to publication is about three months. Dates of receipt and acceptance are the dates on which the authors completed the manuscript and final revision, respectively. Peer reviewers should adhere to the ethical peer review guidelines that are to declare any conflicts of interest and keep the content of the manuscript confidential.
Accepted papers are eventually sent for English language editing by ENAGO and then for production.
Guidelines for Reviewers Original Articles Please give us your opinion of the attached manuscript, which has been submitted for publication in the Journal of High Institute of Public Health within four weeks. Kindly put your comments on the manuscript using the “Review, new comment” function according to the following guidelines. Then upload the new file. Your anonymous comments will be sent to the authors to help them revise their manuscript for publication or to justify its rejection. If you wish to make comments that are not intended for the authors, please provide them separately and label them "For Editor Only".
a) Is the topic relevant to the journal? b) Is the content important to the field? c) Is the work original? (If not, please give references)
a) To what extent is the study design appropriate and adequate for the objectives? b) Is the sample size appropriate and adequately justified? c) Is the sampling technique appropriate and adequately described? d) How well are the methods and instruments of data collection described? e) How well are techniques to minimize bias/errors documented?
a) Are the methods adequately described? b) Are the methods of data analysis appropriate? c) Do the results answer the research question? d) Are the results credible? e) Is statistical significance well documented (e.g. as confidence intervals or P-value)? f) Are the findings presented logically with appropriate displays and explanations?
a) How well are the key findings stated? b) To what extent have differences or similarities with other studies been discussed and reasons for these given? c) Are the findings discussed in the light of previous evidence? d) Are the implications of these findings clearly explained? e) Is the interpretation warranted by and sufficiently derived from and focused on the data and results?
a) Are the references appropriate and relevant? b) Are they up to date? c) Are there any obvious, important references that should have been included and have not been? d) Do the references follow the recommended Vancouver style? e) Are there any errors?
a) Is the paper clearly written? b) Is the paper presented logically (e.g. correct information in each section, logical flow of arguments)? c) Are there problems with the grammar / spelling / punctuation / language?
Guidelines for Reviewers Review Articles Please give us your opinion of the attached manuscript, which has been submitted for publication in the Journal of High Institute of Public Health within four weeks. Kindly put your comments on the manuscript using the “Review, new comment” function according to the following guidelines. Then upload the new file. Your anonymous comments will be sent to the authors to help them revise their manuscript for publication or to justify its rejection. If you wish to make comments that are not intended for the authors, please provide them separately and label them "For Editor Only".
a) Is the topic relevant for the journal? b) Is the content important to the field?
a) How well are the key findings stated? b) To what extent have differences or similarities between studies discussed and reasons for these given? c) Are the findings discussed in the light of previous evidence? d) Are the implications of these findings clearly explained?
a) Are the references appropriate and relevant? b) Are they up to date? c) Are there any obvious, important references that should have been included and have not been? d) Do the references follow the recommended Vancouver style? e) Are there any errors?
a) Is the paper clearly written? b) Is the paper presented logically (e.g. correct information and logical flow of arguments)? c) Are there problems with the grammar / spelling / punctuation / language? |
Top