Review Process

Editorial Workflow

Global Insights in Public and Preventive Health (GIPPH) follows a structured, transparent, and ethical editorial workflow designed to ensure scientific rigor, editorial independence, and high-quality publication. All manuscripts are managed through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

1. Submission & Initial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment to evaluate:

  • Completeness of the submission
  • Compliance with author and submission guidelines
  • Plagiarism screening
  • Ethical compliance (human/animal research, informed consent, and approvals where applicable)
  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope

Manuscripts that do not meet these fundamental requirements may be returned to authors for correction or desk rejected.

2. Editor Assignment

An appropriate Handling Editor or Section Editor is assigned based on subject expertise. The editor evaluates:

  • Scientific relevance and originality
  • Quality of writing and presentation
  • Clarity of objectives, methodology, and outcomes
  • Suitability for external peer review

Manuscripts deemed unsuitable at this stage may be rejected without external review.

3. Peer Review Coordination

Manuscripts that pass editorial assessment are forwarded for single-blind peer review. The Handling Editor identifies and invites qualified, independent reviewers with relevant expertise in public health, preventive medicine, or related disciplines.

4. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers provide detailed, constructive evaluations focusing on:

  • Originality and novelty
  • Scientific rigor and methodological quality
  • Accuracy and clarity of results and interpretation
  • Ethical considerations and data integrity
  • Relevance to the journal’s scope

Reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject
  • Resubmit for Review

5. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports, the Handling Editor makes an informed decision:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Resubmit for Review
  • Reject

Revised manuscripts may undergo additional review rounds depending on the extent of revisions required.

6. Revision & Author Response

Authors are required to submit:

  • A revised manuscript
  • A detailed, point-by-point response addressing each reviewer comment

The editor evaluates whether revisions meet scientific, ethical, and editorial standards.

7. Final Acceptance

Once all reviewer and editorial requirements are satisfactorily addressed, the manuscript is formally accepted for publication.

8. Production Process

Accepted manuscripts undergo:

  • Professional copyediting
  • Layout and formatting
  • Proofreading
  • Author proof review and approval

All final corrections are incorporated prior to publication.

9. Online Publication

GIPPH follows a Continuous Publication model. After final production:

  • Each article is published online immediately upon readiness
  • A Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is assigned
  • Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license
  • Content is preserved according to the journal’s digital archiving policy

Peer Review Process

GIPPH employs a Single-Blind Peer Review system to ensure objective, fair, and rigorous evaluation of all submissions.

What Single-Blind Peer Review Means

  • Reviewers are aware of author identities
  • Authors do not know reviewer identities
  • Reviewer anonymity supports independent and unbiased assessment

1. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject-area expertise
  • Research and publication experience
  • Professional standing
  • Ability to provide objective, timely, and constructive feedback

Typically, a minimum of two reviewers are assigned to each manuscript.

2. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts for:

  • Scientific significance and contribution to public and preventive health
  • Methodological soundness and data quality
  • Clarity, organization, and accuracy of presentation
  • Ethical compliance
  • Alignment with GIPPH’s aims and scope

3. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject
  • Resubmit for Review

4. Confidentiality & Ethics

Reviewers are required to:

  • Treat all manuscripts as confidential
  • Avoid sharing or discussing content with third parties
  • Declare any conflicts of interest
  • Provide objective, respectful, and ethical feedback

5. Editorial Oversight

Editors make the final publication decision based on:

  • Reviewer feedback
  • Scientific quality and originality
  • Ethical compliance
  • Relevance to the journal’s scope

If reviewer opinions significantly differ, an additional reviewer may be invited.

6. Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting:

  • A formal written appeal
  • Clear, evidence-based responses to reviewer or editorial concerns

All appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, who may initiate further evaluation if warranted.