Editorial Policies

Section Policies

Editorials

Editors
  • Faisel Yunus
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Original Research Articles

Editors
  • Faisel Yunus
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Articles

Editors
  • Faisel Yunus
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Brief Communications

Editors
  • Faisel Yunus
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Special Reports

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Study Protocols

Editors
  • Faisel Yunus
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Letters to the Editor

Editors
  • Faisel Yunus
Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Books Reviews

Editors
  • Faisel Yunus
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Software and Database Articles

Editors
  • Faisel Yunus
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Theses Abstracts

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

General information 

Most of the contributions to JPHDC are peer-reviewed. It is our goal that the submission, review and publishing processes take advantage of the efficiency and faster turnaround of the e-journal system, while maintaining the high standards of excellence of traditional, formal, scientific journals. 

As with all formal scientific journals, peer-review is necessary and required in order to optimise overall quality and scientific robustness of the final published draft of accepted papers. JPHDC is committed to high scientific standards, treating publication as a collaborative process between Author, Reviewers and Editors. Here "Author" refers to the corresponding author who is responsible for handling submission and revision of a manuscript, and who may or may not be the lead author. Authors are encouraged to refer to the Reviewer Guidelines and Editors' Guidelines for a detailed description of the roles and expectations JPHDC has of its Reviewers and Editors, respectively. 

 

Online manuscript review

We ask peer-reviewers to submit their reports via our secure online system by following the link provided in the editor's email.

 

Criteria for publication

In general, to be acceptable, a paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field.

 

The peer-review process

All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field). 

Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to two or three reviewers, but sometimes more if special advice is needed (for example on statistics or a particular technique). The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:  

  • Accept, with or without editorial revisions
  • Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
  • Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission     
  • Reject outright, typically on grounds of insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems 

Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of the same paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other. 

We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration. 

We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We, therefore, ask that reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. We are very aware, however, that reviewers are usually reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors. 

When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, editors will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms. We take reviewers' criticisms seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, we may consult the other reviewers as to whether s/he is applying an unduly critical standard. We occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, for example a specialist technical point, on which we feel a need for further advice.

  

Selecting peer-reviewers

Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience of a reviewer's characteristics. 

We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that these messages contain confidential information, which should be treated as such.

 

Writing the peer-review

JPHDC is appreciative of its peer-reviewers. It is only by collaboration with our reviewers that editors can ensure that the manuscripts we publish are among the most important in their disciplines of scientific research. We appreciate the time that reviewers devote to assessing the manuscripts we send them. 

The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision. The review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to improve the manuscript for publication elsewhere. This is secondary to the other functions, however, and referees should not feel obliged to provide detailed, constructive advice to authors of papers that do not meet the criteria for the journal. If the reviewer believes that a manuscript would not be suitable for publication, his/her report to the author should be as brief as is consistent with enabling the author to understand the reason for the decision. 

Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but it is helpful if the main points are stated in the comments for transmission to the authors. JPHDC will provide a reviewer template for the reviewers.

 

Timing

JPHDC is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.

 

Anonymity 

We do not release reviewers' identities to authors or to other reviewers, except when reviewers specifically ask to be identified. Unless they feel strongly, however, we prefer that reviewers should remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond. Before revealing their identities, reviewers should consider the possibility that they may be asked to comment on the criticisms of other reviewers and on further revisions of the manuscript; identified reviewers may find it more difficult to be objective in such circumstances. 

We ask reviewers not to identify themselves to authors without the editor's knowledge. If they wish to reveal their identities while the manuscript is under consideration, this should be done via the editor, or if this is not practicable, we ask authors to inform the editor as soon as possible after the reviewer has revealed his or her identity to the author. 

Our policy is to neither confirm nor deny any speculation about reviewers' identities, and we encourage reviewers to adopt a similar policy.

  

Editing referees' reports

As a matter of policy, we do not suppress reviewers' reports; any comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted, regardless of what we may think of the content. On rare occasions, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information about other matters. We ask reviewers to avoid statements that may cause needless offence; conversely, we strongly encourage reviewers to state plainly their opinion of a paper. Authors should recognise that criticisms are not necessarily unfair simply because they are expressed in robust language. 

As a condition of agreeing to assess the manuscript, all reviewers undertake to keep submitted manuscripts and associated data confidential, and not to redistribute them without permission from the journal. If a reviewer seeks advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, he or she ensures that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report. By this and by other means, JPHDC endeavours to keep the content of all submissions confidential until the publication date. Although we go to every effort to ensure reviewers honour their promise to ensure confidentiality, we are not responsible for the conduct of reviewers. 

Reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential, and that we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality. We cannot, however, guarantee to maintain this confidentiality in the face of a successful legal action to disclose identity in the event of a reviewer having written personally derogatory comments about the authors in his or her reports. For this reason as well as for reasons of standard professional courtesy, we request reviewers to refrain from personally negative comments about the authors of submitted manuscripts. Frank comments about the scientific content of the manuscripts, however, are strongly encouraged by the editors.

  

Referee suggestions 

Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers when they submit their manuscripts, but these suggestions may not be followed by the journal in all instances. Authors may also request the journal to exclude a few individuals. The journal sympathetically considers such exclusion requests and usually honours them, but the editor's decision on the choice of peer-reviewers is final.

 

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...