Review Process

Editorial Workflow & Peer Review Policy

Global Insights in Public and Preventive Health (GIPPH) follows a structured and ethical editorial workflow designed to maintain scientific robustness and inform public health policy. All submissions are managed via the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform to ensure transparency and a verifiable audit trail.

GIPPH utilizes a Single-Blind Peer Review system. Reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, but author identities remain confidential to the reviewers. This model allows experts to evaluate the research within its specific epidemiological or social context while ensuring an objective, unbiased assessment.

The GIPPH Accelerated Review Cycle (25–30 Days)

To support the urgent needs of public health decision-making and disease prevention, GIPPH aims for a total turnaround of 25–30 days from initial submission to final online publication.

1. Submission & Initial Screening (Days 1–3) Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts a technical assessment:

  • Plagiarism Screening: Mandatory screening via Turnitin/iThenticate. A similarity index below 15% (excluding references) is required.
  • Ethical Compliance: Verification of IRB/Ethics Committee approvals, especially for population-based studies and community medicine.
  • Scope Check: Alignment with GIPPH’s preventive medicine and global health focus.

2. Editor Assignment & Internal Review (Days 4–5) An Associate Editor with relevant public health expertise evaluates the manuscript for methodological soundness and potential social impact. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are desk-rejected at this stage.

3. External Peer Review (Days 6–20) Manuscripts passing internal review are sent to a minimum of two independent, external reviewers. Reviewers are selected from our global database of public health experts. They evaluate:

  • Scientific robustness and epidemiological accuracy.
  • Potential to inform public health policy or preventive practice.
  • Clarity of results and data integrity.

4. Editorial Decision (Days 21–23) Based on the reports from the two independent reviewers, the Editor reaches a decision:

  • Accept: Ready for production.
  • Minor Revision: Minor adjustments to data presentation or text.
  • Major Revision: Significant improvements required, often followed by re-evaluation.
  • Reject: Methodological flaws or lack of relevance to public health practice.

5. Revision & Author Response Authors must provide a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response addressing all reviewer concerns. The Editor confirms that the revisions meet the journal's scientific and ethical standards.

6. Final Acceptance & Production (Days 24–28) Accepted manuscripts undergo professional copyediting and layout formatting. Authors are provided with a final galley proof for review and approval.

7. Online Publication (Day 30) GIPPH follows a Continuous Publication model. After final approval:

  • The article is published online immediately with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) via Crossref.
  • Content is curated into two semi-annual issues (Jan-Jun and Jul-Dec) for archival purposes.
  • Articles are distributed under the CC BY 4.0 license and preserved via LOCKSS/CLOCKSS.

Reviewer Confidentiality & Ethics

Reviewers must:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript content.
  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest prior to the review.
  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback to help authors improve their work.

Appeals Process

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a formal written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals must be evidence-based and address the technical or ethical concerns raised during the review process.