Peer review process

Global Public Health & Health Systems (GPHHS), published by EcoScribe Publishers Company Limited, operates a quality-focused peer review process designed to be fair, timely, and transparent, while protecting the integrity of the scientific record.

1) Review Model

Double-blind peer review: authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. Editors can access author identities for legitimate editorial administration (e.g., scope checks, ethics verification, and conflict-of-interest screening). Authors are required to submit an anonymised manuscript for review and avoid self-identifying information in the main file.

Manuscripts are assessed first by the editorial office and the handling editor before external review.

2) Editorial Screening (Pre-Review)

Every submission undergoes initial checks for:

  • Scope fit and scholarly relevance to public health and health systems

  • Completeness (required files, declarations, and metadata)

  • Basic reporting quality (clarity of methods, results, and conclusions)

  • Similarity screening and citation practices

  • Ethics and integrity signals (ethics approval, consent where relevant, trial registration where applicable, disclosures)

GPHHS may desk reject manuscripts that are out of scope, methodologically inadequate, poorly reported, or raise integrity concerns. Desk rejection protects reviewer time and provides a faster outcome for authors.

3) External Peer Review

GPHHS typically invites two independent reviewers for full research articles. For short reports or narrowly scoped manuscripts, the editor may use one external review plus an editorial review, depending on complexity.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate:

  • methodological rigor and appropriateness of analysis

  • clarity and completeness of reporting

  • validity of conclusions relative to the evidence presented

  • originality and contribution to the field

  • ethical compliance and any integrity concerns

4) Target Decision Timeline (3–4 Weeks)

GPHHS aims to provide an efficient first decision:

  • Day 0–3: administrative checks and integrity screening

  • Day 3–6: handling editor assessment / desk decision

  • Day 6–8: reviewer invitations

  • Day 8–22: review period (typically 10–14 days)

  • Day 22–28: editorial decision

Timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the extent of revisions required.

5) Editorial Decisions

Decisions may include:

  • Accept

  • Minor revision

  • Major revision

  • Reject

6) Revisions

Authors should submit:

  • a clean revised manuscript,

  • a tracked-changes version (recommended), and

  • a point-by-point response letter.

Major revisions may be sent back to reviewers when needed.

7) Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal decisions by submitting a clear scientific rationale and responding to the editorial concerns. Complaints about process or publication ethics can be submitted to the journal’s editorial office and will be handled confidentially in line with EcoScribe Publishers’ ethics procedures.