Peer Review Policy

Global Insights in Public and Preventive Health (GIPPH) follows a Single-Blind Peer Review system to ensure objective, fair, and rigorous evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.

Under this model:

• Reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities
• Authors do not know the identities of reviewers

Review Process Includes

The peer-review process at GIPPH consists of the following stages:

1. Initial editorial screening for scope, quality, and ethical compliance
2. Assignment of the manuscript to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise
3. Reviewer evaluation and submission of recommendations
4. Editorial decision (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject)
5. Author revisions and resubmission (if applicable)
6. Final editorial approval prior to publication

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and unbiased feedback that supports scientific quality and improvement.

Confidentiality

All participants in the peer-review process are required to maintain strict confidentiality.

Reviewers must:

• Treat manuscripts and associated materials as confidential documents
• Not share, discuss, or disclose manuscript content with third parties
• Not use unpublished data or information for personal, academic, or professional purposes

Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy

GIPPH requires full disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest to maintain transparency and trust in the publication process.

1. Authors

Authors must disclose any financial or non-financial interests that could influence the research or its interpretation, including:

• Financial interests or sponsorships
• Employment, consultancies, or advisory roles
• Grants, funding sources, or institutional support
• Personal, professional, or academic relationships
• Any other factor that could be perceived as influencing the research outcome

A Conflict of Interest statement is mandatory for all submissions.

2. Reviewers

Reviewers must decline to review a manuscript if:

• The manuscript involves current or recent collaborators
• A financial, professional, or personal relationship exists with the authors
• Any circumstance could compromise objectivity or introduce bias

Reviewers are required to notify the editor immediately if a conflict of interest is identified.

3. Editors

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts if:

• They have co-authored publications with the authors
• They have financial, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest
• They are unable to make an impartial editorial decision

All editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of scientific merit, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s scope.