All manuscripts submitted to JEGH undergo a double-blind peer review, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation process. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance of the submitted work. Journal evaluates manuscripts impartially and without regard to the authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or other non-academic factors. Through a structured and independent review system, JEGH ensures that all published articles meet high standards of academic quality, scientific validity, and relevance to the fields of public health and health systems sciences. Key elements of the peer review policy include:

• External Experts: Each paper is evaluated by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected for subject-matter expertise and must be outside the journal’s own editorial team. Section Editors invite reviewers based on expertise, absence of conflicts, and diversity of perspectives. Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but the Editors retain sole discretion to select unbiased reviewers.
• Confidential Double-Blind Review: The identities of authors and reviewers are kept strictly confidential throughout the process. Manuscripts are anonymized before review. Reviewers must treat all information in a submission as confidential and may not use or share any content or ideas from the manuscript. Reviewer reports themselves are not published or signed; all commentary remains anonymous to the authors.
• Editorial Oversight: The Section Editors oversee the peer review of assigned manuscripts. They coordinate the review process, evaluate reviewer reports, and make a recommendation. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection, taking into account reviewers’ evaluations and, when needed, advice from the broader Editorial Board. In this way, decisions are collective and unbiased. The Editorial Office manages the workflow, monitors timelines, and ensures ethical standards (e.g. plagiarism checks and conflict-of-interest declarations) are upheld throughout.

Manuscript Handling Workflow

1. Initial Screening: Upon submission, the Editorial Office and Section Editor check the manuscript’s scope, originality, and format. Manuscripts not conforming to JEGH’s aims (e.g. outside public/global health) or submission guidelines may be desk-rejected or returned for formatting fixes. All submissions are screened with plagiarism-detection software. Plagiarized manuscripts or those under review elsewhere are rejected.
2. Reviewer Assignment: The Section Editor assigns the paper to at least two qualified reviewers (subject experts). Reviewers are chosen for their expertise and independence. The editorial team ensures no reviewer has a conflict of interest with the authors or content. If a reviewer identifies a conflict, they are expected to decline the assignment.
3. Peer Review Phase: Invited reviewers evaluate the manuscript under double-blind conditions, typically completing their assessment within 3–4 weeks. Each reviewer submits a detailed report assessing the work against JEGH’s evaluation criteria (see below). Reviewers are reminded to work objectively and recuse themselves if a conflict emerges.
4. Reviewer Reports and Recommendations: Reviewers recommend one of: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. They provide constructive comments to help authors improve the work. The Section Editor reviews all reports: if reviewers disagree substantially, a third reviewer or Associate Editor may be consulted.
5. Editorial Decision: The Section Editor summarizes the reviewers’ feedback and advises the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief then makes the final decision, informed by peer reviews and, when necessary, input from the Editorial Board. Decisions and anonymized reviewer comments are communicated to the authors promptly. JEGH aims to make first decisions within 6–8 weeks of submission; if delays occur, authors are notified and may choose to withdraw their manuscript.
6. Revision and Re-Review: If revisions are requested, authors submit a response letter and revised manuscript. The same reviewers (or new ones if needed) evaluate the revisions. The Editor-in-Chief issues the final acceptance or rejection based on the revised manuscript and any further review.
7. Final Publication: Once accepted, articles are copyedited and typeset. JEGH publishes submission, revision, and acceptance dates on the article to ensure transparency. The date of publication is recorded as well. JEGH does not guarantee acceptance of any manuscript; decisions always reflect the peer review outcome.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to judge manuscripts on the following criteria, ensuring alignment with JEGH’s scope in public health and health systems sciences:

• Novelty & Relevance: Is the research question original? Does its advance knowledge or practice in global/public health? Is the topic significant within JEGH’s scope?
• Methodology: Are the study design and methods appropriate and sound? Is there sufficient detail for reproducibility (e.g. data collection, sampling, analytical methods)?
• Results & Interpretation: Are results clearly and logically presented? Do they adequately support the authors’ conclusions? Are the statistical analyses appropriate and correctly applied?
• Ethical Compliance: Has the study obtained all necessary ethical approvals and informed consent? Are participants’ rights protected? Are conflicts of interest for all authors clearly disclosed?
• Clarity & Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized and written in clear, concise language? Are figures and tables properly labeled and used effectively? Is the argument coherent and comprehensive?

Reviewers should focus on substantive issues; minor formatting issues (e.g. style, grammar) can be noted but are not primary grounds for rejection. All feedback should be constructive, respectful, and aimed at improving the work. Reviewers must strictly maintain confidentiality[6] and should not contact the authors directly.

Conflicts of Interest

All participants in the peer review process, authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any real or potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers and editors recuse themselves from handling any manuscript where a conflict exists (for example, personal relationships, direct competition, or financial interests related to the work). If a submitted article involves any author who is also on the editorial team, that person plays no part in its review or decision. COPE guidelines on conflicts are followed throughout. Undisclosed conflicts may lead to rejection or retraction.

Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

JEGH adheres to strict ethical guidelines. Manuscripts under review are treated as privileged information. Reviewers must not use any unpublished data or ideas from the manuscript for personal advantage. Authors are expected to submit only original work and to cite all sources appropriately. Plagiarism, redundant publication, or data fabrication are considered serious misconduct and are managed according to COPE standards. JEGH also complies with reporting standards (e.g. CONSORT, PRISMA) where applicable, and may request checklists from authors.

Appeals and Corrections

Authors who believe a decision was made in error may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of notification. An appeal should clearly explain the grounds (e.g. overlooked information, procedural concerns). Appeals are reviewed impartially, often by an Editorial Board member not involved in the original decision. JEGH follows COPE’s recommendations in handling appeals and complaints to ensure fairness. Similarly, any allegations of reviewer or editorial misconduct are investigated confidentially, and necessary corrections or retractions are made according to COPE guidelines.

Special Issues

JEGH periodically publishes special issues on emerging global health themes. All Special Issue manuscripts undergo the same rigorous peer review and editorial oversight as regular submissions. The Editor-in-Chief retains ultimate responsibility for content; Guest Editors proposing a theme must have their credentials vetted by the Editorial Board. Guest Editors coordinate the review of submissions in their issue, but any manuscript authored by a Guest Editor is handled independently by other editors (and such manuscripts are limited to no more than 25% of the issue’s content). Special issues are clearly labeled as such on the journal website.