Peer Review Policy

Our Approach to Peer Review

At the International Journal of Advanced Community Medicine, we see peer review as more than a gatekeeping exercise. Yes, we need to filter out work that isn't ready for publication — but that's only part of what we do. We also want to help authors make their manuscripts better.

Community medicine research serves a vital purpose in addressing public health challenges at the population level. The studies we publish may influence health policies, preventive interventions, and community health programmes. They document epidemiological patterns, evaluate public health initiatives, and provide evidence for health system strengthening. That responsibility shapes how we approach every manuscript that comes through our doors.

We've designed our review process to be rigorous but constructive. When reviewers identify problems, we expect them to suggest solutions where possible. A good review doesn't just point out what's wrong — it helps authors understand how to fix it.

Double-Blind Review

We use a double-blind peer review process. This means authors don't know who is reviewing their work, and reviewers don't know whose work they're reviewing. We remove author names, institutional affiliations, and other identifying details before manuscripts go out for review.

Why do we do this? Because we want manuscripts judged on their merits alone. A study from a renowned academic institution shouldn't get an easier ride than one from a district health facility. A postgraduate student's work deserves the same fair hearing as an experienced professor's. Blinding helps level the playing field.

Of course, blinding isn't perfect — sometimes reviewers can guess who wrote something based on the study location or methodological approach. But it reduces bias, and that's worth doing.

What Our Reviewers Evaluate

We give our reviewers clear guidance on what to assess. Here's what they're looking at:

Scientific Merit

• Relevance to public health: Does this research address an important community health issue? Will it contribute to improving population health outcomes or health service delivery?
• Originality: Does the study add new knowledge to the field? This might include novel epidemiological findings, evaluation of health interventions, or insights into health determinants.

Methodology

• Study design: Is the research design appropriate for the research questions? Are the methods clearly described and reproducible?
• Sampling and data collection: Is the sample size adequate? Are sampling methods appropriate? Are data collection tools validated and reliable?
• Statistical analysis: Are statistical methods appropriate for the data type and study design? Are results interpreted correctly?

Presentation Quality

• Structure: Does the manuscript follow the appropriate format with clear sections for introduction, methods, results, and discussion?
• Tables and figures: Are data presentations clear, accurate, and necessary? Do they effectively support the findings?
• Discussion quality: Does the discussion place findings in context of existing literature? Are implications for public health practice clearly articulated?
• Language and clarity: Is the writing clear and readable? Are references complete and properly formatted?

Ethical Considerations

• Ethics approval: Has institutional ethics committee approval been obtained and documented? Is informed consent appropriately addressed?
• Participant protection: Are participant confidentiality and anonymity adequately protected in the manuscript?
• Conflicts of interest: Are potential conflicts disclosed? This includes relationships with funding bodies, pharmaceutical companies, or other commercial interests.

Who Are Our Reviewers?

We select reviewers based on their expertise in the manuscript's subject area and their track record in research and publication. These are practising community medicine specialists, epidemiologists, public health researchers, and academics who understand both the practical realities and the methodological standards of community health research.

Our reviewers are external to the editorial board. We believe this independence is important — it prevents any appearance that decisions are made by an insular group.

We typically assign two reviewers to each manuscript. If their assessments diverge significantly, we may seek a third opinion. The final decision rests with the editors, but reviewer input is central to that decision.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Confidentiality

This is non-negotiable. Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share them with anyone, discuss their contents, or use any information from them for their own work. The trust authors place in the review system depends on this.

Conflicts of Interest

We ask reviewers to flag any conflicts before they begin their assessment. This might include personal relationships with the authors, competitive interests, financial connections, or previous involvement with the research. If a reviewer feels they cannot provide an unbiased evaluation for any reason, they should decline the assignment.

Reviewers who identify a conflict after starting their review should notify us immediately. They're also welcome to suggest alternative reviewers who might be better suited to evaluate the work.

Timeliness

Authors deserve prompt feedback. We ask reviewers to complete their assessments within the agreed timeframe — typically two to three weeks. If delays are unavoidable, we appreciate early notice so we can make alternative arrangements.

More Than Gatekeeping

We mentioned earlier that our goal extends beyond simply accepting or rejecting manuscripts. We're particularly committed to supporting emerging researchers — postgraduate students, public health trainees, and researchers who may be new to publishing their work.

Not every important study arrives perfectly documented. Sometimes, valuable public health insights are let down by weak writing or incomplete analysis. When we see potential, we try to work with authors to realize it. This takes more time and effort than simple rejection, but we think it's worthwhile.

That said, we have standards, and we maintain them. Supportive doesn't mean accepting work that isn't ready. It means giving authors a fair chance to improve.

Questions About Our Review Process?

If you have questions about how peer review works at International Journal of Advanced Community Medicine — whether you're an author wondering what to expect or a potential reviewer interested in contributing — feel free to contact us at comedjournal@gmail.com.