Guide for reviewers

1. The role of peer review

Peer review helps editors decide which manuscripts to publish, strengthens work that is accepted, and acts as a filter for errors, omissions and misleading interpretations. Thoughtful feedback also has an educational value, especially for early-career researchers.
Journals of Health Administration uses double-anonymous peer review (authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identities).
Reviewers’ recommendations are advisory. Editors take comments into account alongside other reviews, the journal’s aims and scope, and broader considerations such as balance of content and ethical issues.

2. Before you accept a review invitation

Accept an invitation only if the manuscript is reasonably close to your area of knowledge. You do not need to be an expert on every method used, but you should be able to judge the main question, methods and interpretation. It is acceptable to note in your review which aspects are outside your core expertise.
Peer review works only when reports are delivered on time. Check the deadline in the invitation. If you cannot complete a thorough review within that timeframe, please decline promptly so that the editor can invite someone else. If you could review but need a small extension, contact the editor before accepting.
Consider whether there are personal, financial, academic or institutional relationships that could reasonably be seen as affecting your impartiality – for example, recent collaborations with the authors, direct competition on the same research question, financial ties to a product being studied, or strong personal or professional disputes. If you are unsure whether a potential conflict is significant, describe it confidentially to the editor and ask for guidance rather than guessing.
Conflicts of interests do not automatically disqualify you from reviewing, but they must be declared so that editor can decide whether it is appropriate to proceed. If a conflict is significant, you should decline the review. If you think the conflict is minor or manageable, explain it clearly in your response to the editor and wait for their decision.

3. Confidentiality & data protection

Manuscripts sent to you for review including data, images, protocols and supplements are confidential documents. They must not be shared, posted online or used for any purpose other than preparing your review, unless the editor explicitly authorizes.
You must not:

• discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the editorial process without permission

• contact the authors directly about the manuscript

• use information from the manuscript for your own research, grants, presentations or teaching before publication, unless explicitly agreed by the editor and authors

• upload the manuscript or substantial parts of it to external tools or services (including general-purpose AI systems) that may store or reuse the content

4. Use of AI

• Do not upload confidential manuscripts, review forms or patient data to public AI systems or online tools that may store or reuse content.

• AI systems cannot be listed as reviewers and must not be used to generate entire review reports or replace your expert judgment.

Please refer to AI guide.

5. How to read & assess a manuscript

Reviewers differ in style, but many find it helpful to approach the manuscript in two passes: a quick overview to understand the question and main findings, followed by a more detailed reading. For the journal, the following aspects are especially important:

5.1. Fit to journal

Consider whether the manuscript falls within the journal’s scope, addresses a relevant question and adds something meaningful. If the work seems clearly better suited to another journal, mention this in confidential comments to the editor.

5.2 Originality and context

Ask whether the study contributes to existing knowledge. Are key recent publications cited and discussed fairly, including work that may challenge the authors’ conclusions? Does the manuscript avoid overstating novelty where similar work exists?

5.3. Methods and study design

For empirical studies, assess whether the design is appropriate to the research question and whether methods are reported in enough detail for replication. Consider:

• sample size justification

• inclusion and exclusion criteria

• randomization and blinding, where relevant

• handling of missing data and drop-outs

• choice of controls and use of validated instruments.

5.4 Statistics and analysis

Evaluate whether statistical methods match the data and design, and whether assumptions are addressed. If detailed statistical review is needed and outside your expertise, flag this for the editor.

5.5 Ethics and reporting standards

Check whether ethics approval, consent and trial registration information (where relevant) are clearly presented and consistent. Consider whether appropriate reporting guidelines appear to have been followed.

5.6 Results, interpretation & limitations

Assess whether data support the authors’ conclusions, whether limitations are acknowledged and whether alternative explanations are considered.

5.7 Presentation: structure, tables & figures

Consider whether the manuscript is organized logically and written clearly enough for readers to follow the argument. Tables and figures should be understandable without constant reference to the main text, avoid duplication and present data accurately. Note major language issues that impede understanding, but remember that scientific quality is primary; journals may help authors improve language after acceptance.

5.8 Ethical & integrity checks during review

Editors and institutions have primary responsibility for investigating potential misconduct, but reviewers are often the first to notice problems. You are not expected to investigate, but you can alert the editor to concerns such as:

• unusual patterns in data or figures that suggest fabrication or falsification

• overlap with previously published work that might indicate plagiarism or redundant publication

• missing or inconsistent information about ethics approval, consent, patient confidentiality

• lack of trial registration for clinical trials, or discrepancies between registered and reported outcomes

• image manipulation that appears to change or conceal data rather than apply legitimate adjustments.

Please refer to our authors’ ethical considerations. If you suspect a serious problem, do not investigate on your own or contact the authors. Instead, briefly describe your concern in confidential comments to the editor. Editors will follow established procedures and may involve institutional research integrity offices where appropriate.

Please consider our review forms which guide you in review process.

6. How to write your review

6.1 Tone and professionalism

A good review is constructive, specific and respectful. Use clear, neutral language; criticize the work, not the authors. Avoid sarcasm, personal remarks or comments that could be perceived as discriminatory or demeaning. Remember that authors may be early-career researchers.

6.2 Recommendations

Your recommendation should follow logically from your comments. For example:

• Accept: only small clarifications or corrections needed.

• Minor revision: study is sound but needs modest changes in wording, structure or limited additional analyses.

• Major revision: study has potential but requires substantial changes in design, analysis or interpretation.

• Reject: fundamental flaws that cannot realistically be fixed, or work clearly out of scope.

7. Co-reviewing with trainees & colleagues

Involving trainees in peer review can be an excellent educational opportunity, but confidentiality and accountability must be preserved.

• Do not share a manuscript with students or colleagues without first obtaining permission from the editor.

• If co-review is approved, ensure that co-reviewers understand and follow the same confidentiality and conflict of interest rules.

• The main invited reviewer remains responsible for the final report submitted to the journal.

8. Reviewer recognition

Reviewers can download certificates of reviewing for academic and professional records. Qualified reviewers may be considered for future editorial board or associate editor roles. In additional, reviewers can enjoy our discounts for APC.  

9. Ethical considerations for reviewers  

Peer review is a professional service that depends on expertise, fairness and confidentiality. Reviewers should accept invitations only when they have suitable expertise and can commit to providing a thorough, unbiased review within a reasonable timeframe. If they feel unqualified, have insufficient time or identify a significant conflict of interest, they should decline promptly.
Manuscripts sent for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers:

• must not share manuscripts with colleagues or students without the editor’s permission and appropriate acknowledgement;

• must not use unpublished data or ideas obtained through review for their own research or for others’ benefit without explicit consent from authors and the editor; and

• should focus their comments on the scientific content, clarity and ethical aspects of the work, avoiding personal or inflammatory language.

• Reviewers should declare any relationships or interests that could be perceived as influencing their assessment (for example, recent collaboration with the authors, institutional links, competing research programs or financial interests).

• Use of AI tools in peer review must follow the journal AI policy: in particular, confidential manuscripts and reports must not be uploaded to public AI services.

• Journal use double blind peer review. If reviewers are aware of authors, they should decline the review and inform the editor in chief. 

• Reviewers should avoid contacting authors.

• Reviewers should inform editor in chief any contacts by authors and decline the review. 

Click the download link to access the review guide.
Download