Guideline for Reviewer

Healthline Journal: Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring the quality, validity, and significance of research before publication. The Healthline Journal is dedicated to advancing research in Community Medicine and Public Health, and the critical role reviewers is deeply appreciated in upholding standards and contributing to the visibility of important public health issues.

These guidelines provide instructions and criteria for evaluating manuscripts submitted to Healthline. Healthline employs a double-blind peer review process. The authors' and reviewers' identities are kept strictly confidential.

 

Invitation to Review: Initial Considerations

Before accepting a review invitation, please ensure:

• Availability and Timeliness: Healthline requests article review response within one week and completion of review within two weeks. If you require a longer period or are unable to meet the deadline, please contact the editor. (editorhealthline@gmail.com)
• Confidentiality: Reviewers are obligated to maintain confidentiality throughout the review process. Do not share, discuss, or disclose any information about the manuscript with others without prior permission from the editorial office.
• Misconduct: If reviewer suspect any form of misconduct, such as plagiarism or data fabrication, it must be informed to the editor with specific details.
• Use of AI: All evaluations must be conducted personally by the reviewer. Reviewer should not use AI tools for revieing whole manuscript or part of manuscript, as human expertise and critical judgment are essential to maintaining the integrity and quality of the peer review process
• Conflict of Interest: Inform the editor if any conflicts exist.
• Manuscript File Commenting: Reviewers are requested to provide specific comments or suggested edits directly within the blinded manuscript file using comments or track changes, in addition to their structured review form.

 

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript objectively and constructively, focusing on its suitability for Healthline Journal.

Overall Quality and Suitability

Reviewers should consider the following core aspects while evaluating the manuscript:

• Originality: Does the manuscript present original data or analysis not previously published, and does it offer a unique perspective or address a gap in current knowledge?
• Innovation: Does the manuscript present novel ideas or findings? Does it introduce innovative methods, perspectives, or interpretations?
• Technical Merit: Are the scientific methods and techniques appropriate and robust?
• Applicability: Does the study offer practical implications or applications in real-world public health settings?
• Presentation and English: Is the manuscript clearly written and grammatically correct?
• Relevance to Public Health: Is the content aligned with the scope and mission of Community Medicine and Public Health?
• References: Are they latest, appropriate, and correctly formatted?

Section-wise Evaluation

• Title: Specific, aligned with the article’s content
• Abstract: describes study’s purpose, hypothesis, key methods, findings, conclusions and MeSH keywords within the word limit of 250.
• Introduction: Clearly outlines the rationale and public health relevance of the study, supported by appropriate references. Should highlight gaps in existing knowledge and end with clearly stated objectives.
• Methods: Detailed methodology including study plan, materials and methods used. Explain sample size justification with sampling technique used. Elaborate ethical considerations.
• Results: See if correct statistical analysis used with appropriate interpretation. Are findings given in the tables and graphs matches with the content given?
• Discussion and Recommendations: Interprets the key findings in context with existing literature. Highlights the strengths, limitations, and relevance of the study.
• Recommendations: Balanced, evidence-based and based on the study findings.
• References: Vancouver style, citations numbers in superscripted square brackets
• Tables & Figures: Clear, well-labelled, with APA style.
• Reporting Guidelines: Encourage authors to use relevant reporting guidelines (e.g., STROBE for observational studies, CONSORT for trials, PRISMA for reviews). The Equator initiative (https://www.equator-network.org) provides accessible tools.
• For the section specific guideline, kindly refer to Authors Guidelines.

 

Format for Review Report

• Providing Specific Feedback: Justify the recommendations given by the reviewers. When making specific comments, consider numbering your points and referring to page and line numbers in the manuscript.
• Constructive Tone: Provide positive feedback first. Use respectful language. Frame suggestions as recommendations, distinguishing between essential revisions (major compulsory) and desirable ones (minor essential or discretionary).

 

Making Recommendations

Accept: Suitable without changes (rare)

Minor Revision: Minor changes before acceptance

Major Revision: Substantial changes and potentially re-review

Reject: Not suitable for publication in current form

The final decision rests with the editorial team. Reviewers’ recommendations as well as the editors' own assessment will be considered for decision.

 

Ethical and Confidential Conduct

• Maintain strict confidentiality
• Avoid using manuscript content
• Report ethical concerns to the editor

 

Reviewer Recognition

• Certificate of Appreciation issued annually
• Public acknowledgment on the Healthline Journal website

 

 

An interested reader who wants to be a reviewer in Healthline Journal can fill in this form: Application for Enrolment as Journal Reviewer