Peer Review Process

The Medical Journal of Public Health (MJPH)

The Medical Journal of Public Health (MJPH) has a well-organized and equal opportunity to conduct the peer review process to guarantee that all papers published in the journal are of high academic and moral standards. It is meant to give authors constructive feedback, as well as to ensure a transparent and quality scholarly publication.

Step-by-Step Review Flow

1. Submission Screening

The editorial office reviews the paper in terms of scope, format, and ethical standards.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Appropriate papers are provided to external subject-expert reviewers to review.

3. Double-Blind Evaluation

To ensure possibility of impartiality, author and reviewer will be concealed.

4. Reviewer Feedback

The critical reviews make elaborate comments and suggestions to enhance the clarity, methodology, and impact.

5. Editorial Decision

The editor is in charge of reading all reports and telling the author of the final decision.

Decision Outcomes

● Accept
● Minor Revision
● Major Revision
● Reject

Review Focus Areas

● Originality and relevance
● Research design and methodology.
● Accuracy of data and results
● Lateness of writing and conclusions.
● Ethical compliance

Core Principles

● Equitable and impartial evaluation.
● Manuscripts will be treated in a confidential manner.
● Critical and positive feedback.
● On time communication in the process.

With the help of such structured peer review process, MJPH not only guarantees the release of high quality and reliable research in the field of public health, but also assists authors in enhancing their academic efforts.