Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

PHRP : Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Peer review policy

Page Path
HOME > Editorial policies > Peer review policy
Editorial policies

This journal operates a double-blind review process. All contributions will be initially assessed by the editor for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of 2 independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final. The detailed review process is as follows.

This journal operates a double-blind review process. All contributions will be initially assessed by the editor for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of 2 independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final. The detailed review process is as follows.

• The referees are selected by the editor from the Editorial Board's database or the board members' recommendation. The referees are then requested to evaluate based on originality, validity, presentation, and importance and interest, and, when considered necessary, statistics.

• Acceptance of a manuscript depends on the evaluation, critiques, and recommended decision made by the referees. A referee may recommend 'accept,' 'minor revision,' 'major revision,' and 'reject.' Upon opposing recommended decisions between referees, or author and referee(s), the Editor-in-Chief has the full right to decide whether the manuscript will be published in the journal. Three repeated decisions of 'major revisions' are regarded as a 'reject' and rejected papers will not be considered further.

• The reviewed manuscripts with comments, recommended directions, and revisions are returned to the corresponding author. The corresponding author is to submit the revised manuscript accompanied by point-to-point replies to the comments given by the editor and how the revisions have been made. There should be a reasonable explanation for any noncompliance with the recommendations. In cases where references, tables, or figures are moved, added or deleted during the revision process, renumbering must be done so that all references, tables, and figures are cited in numeric order. If the revised paper is not received within 2 months of decision, the manuscript is considered to have been withdrawn.

• When the final decision on the acceptance of the manuscript is made, the Editorial Office notifies the corresponding author. The peer-review process takes approximately 8−12 weeks.

• AI use by peer reviewers: Generative AI tools can lack up-to-date knowledge and may produce nonsensical, biased or false information. Manuscripts may also include sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons we ask that, while the journal explores providing our peer reviewers with access to safe AI tools, peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools. If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was in any way supported by an AI tool, we ask peer reviewers to declare the use of such tools transparently in the peer review report.


PHRP : Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives