Purpose of the Peer Review
The peer review process at NJHS is designed to ensure an expert, objective, and constructive evaluation of each manuscript’s scholarly merit, originality, and contribution to the field of health sciences. Utilizing a double-blind review system where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous NJHS upholds the principles of fairness and impartiality. Reviewers are entrusted with providing evidence-based, constructive feedback aimed at enhancing the quality, clarity, and impact of the submitted work. All reviewer comments are shared confidentially with authors to support meaningful revisions and alignment with the journal’s standards of academic excellence.Reviewers are expected to critically assess manuscripts across the following dimensions:
Originality: The manuscript should present a novel contribution to the literature, with a clearly defined research question and scope. Reviewers must evaluate whether the findings advance current knowledge meaningfully and assess the clarity and precision of the English language.
Significance: Results must be interpreted appropriately, with conclusions firmly grounded in the data. Reviewers should determine if the work addresses a critical gap in the field or resolves a longstanding challenge through methodologically sound experimentation.
Quality of Presentation: The manuscript must be logically structured, with a title that accurately reflects its content, an abstract that concisely summarizes key objectives and findings, and prose that is accessible to the journal’s interdisciplinary audience.
Scientific Soundness: Conclusions should align with the journal’s Aims and Scope and engage its readership. Reviewers should note whether the work appeals to a broad audience or is narrowly specialized.
General Merit: Reviewers must assess the potential impact of publication, including whether the work offers actionable insights, improves healthcare systems, or informs policy.
Manuscript Structure
Introduction: The introduction should contextualize the study within existing national and international literature, clearly stating the rationale, objectives, and hypotheses. It should conclude with a brief overview of the manuscript’s structure.
Methods: This section must detail the study design, ethical approval number and date of issue (for human/animal research), setting, duration, data collection protocols, sampling strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and statistical methods (including software and significance thresholds). Specifications for equipment, drugs, or chemicals (e.g., generic names, dosages) should be included.
Results: Findings must be presented concisely, avoiding redundancy between text, tables, and figures. All claims must be robustly supported by the data.
Discussion: Interpret results in the context of prior work, explicitly stating whether hypotheses were supported or refuted. Discuss strengths, limitations, and implications for future research or practice.
Conclusions: Summarize key findings succinctly without overstatement. New data or unsupported claims must not be introduced.
Manuscript Categories
NJHS considers the following article types:
- Editorial
- Perspective
- Research Article
- Clinical Trials
- Review Article
- Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- Case Reports
- Short Communication
- Letter to the Editor
- Obituary
Ethical Requirements
Manuscripts involving research with human participants or animal subjects must include appropriate documentation of ethical approval from the relevant institutional review board or ethics committee. Reviewers are expected to identify and flag any potential ethical concerns, such as lack of ethical approval, inadequate informed consent, or evidence of data fabrication or misconduct. All authors are required to adhere to the NJHS Publication Ethics guidelines, which outline the journal’s standards for responsible research conduct and are available in detail on the NJHS website.
Review Structure and Tone
Reviews must be professional, respectful, and constructive. Critiques should distinguish between subjective opinions and objective, evidence-based assessments. Use the journal’s reviewer template to structure feedback, ensuring all evaluation criteria (e.g., originality, methodology, and clarity) are addressed. Avoid personal remarks or hostile language.
Final Decision Process
The Editor-in-Chief holds the final authority in determining the outcome of each submission, acceptance, revision, or rejection based on a comprehensive evaluation of reviewer feedback. Authors may be invited to submit a revised manuscript addressing the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. At the Editor-in-Chief’s discretion, revised submissions may undergo additional rounds of peer review to ensure the manuscript meets the journal’s standards for scientific quality and integrity.
