Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewer Guidelines for JAEP Health Sciences

These guidelines are intended to assist reviewers in providing rigorous, constructive, and fair evaluations of manuscripts submitted to JAEP Health Sciences. The journal promotes high-quality research in public health, epidemiology, health sciences, and related disciplines. Reviewers should assess manuscripts based on scientific quality, methodological rigor, clarity, and contribution to the advancement of knowledge.

1. General Principles for Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, confidential, and unbiased assessments of submitted manuscripts.

• Evaluate whether the study meets scientific and ethical standards.

• Offer constructive feedback to improve the manuscript.

• Identify methodological weaknesses, ethical concerns, or reporting gaps.

• Assess whether the manuscript contributes new knowledge to the scientific community.

Reviewers should follow international standards such as those recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the Committee on Publication Ethics.

2. Evaluation of Paper Format and Structure

Title and Author Details

• The title of the paper must not exceed 20 words and should be written in 16-point font size.

• Author names should be separated by commas and followed by superscript numbers corresponding to their affiliations.

• Affiliations must include: Department, Institution/University, City, and Country (e.g., Department of Public Health, Johannesburg University, Johannesburg, South Africa).

• Email: Corresponding author email: example: John Mahna, Mahna@gamil.com

Reviewers should confirm that the manuscript follows a standard scientific structure, typically including:

1. Title

2. Abstract

3. Keywords

4. Introduction

5. Methodology

6. Data Analysis / Results

7. Discussion

8. Conclusion

9. Ethical Considerations

10. Authors’ Contributions

11. References

The manuscript should demonstrate logical organization, clarity, and scientific coherence.

3. Abstract Requirements

The abstract should:

• Not exceed 300 words.

• Clearly summarize the background, objectives, methodology, key results, and conclusions.

• Reflect the main findings of the study accurately.

• Avoid citations, abbreviations, or unnecessary technical details.

Reviewers should assess whether the abstract accurately represents the content of the manuscript.

4. Methodology Assessment

The methodology section should be evaluated for:

• Clarity of study design (e.g., cross-sectional, cohort, clinical trial).

• Adequate description of study population, sampling methods, and inclusion/exclusion criteria.

• Clear description of data collection procedures and tools.

• Appropriateness of the research design to answer the study objectives or research questions.

• Transparency in describing interventions, measurements, and variables.

Reviewers should ensure that the methods are replicable and scientifically sound.

5. Data Analysis and Statistical Reporting

Reviewers should assess whether:

• The statistical methods are appropriate for the study design and data type.

• Authors respect statistical assumptions when conducting analyses (e.g., normality, independence, homogeneity of variance where applicable).

• Analytical methods are clearly described and justified.

• Results are reported with appropriate statistical indicators (e.g., confidence intervals, p-values, effect sizes).

• Tables and figures clearly present the results without duplication.

Interpretation of results should be accurate and consistent with the statistical findings.

6. Discussion Section

Reviewers should evaluate whether the discussion:

• Interprets the results in relation to the study objectives.

• Compares findings with existing scientific literature.

• Identifies the strengths and limitations of the study.

• Avoids overinterpretation or unsupported claims.

• Provides implications for policy, practice, or future research.

7. Contribution to the Current Body of Knowledge

A key role of reviewers is to assess whether the manuscript adds value to existing scientific knowledge.

Reviewers should consider:

• Whether the study provides new evidence, insights, or perspectives.

• Its relevance to public health, epidemiology, or health sciences.

• Its potential impact on research, policy, clinical practice, or community health.

• Whether the study fills an identified research gap.

8. Ethical Clearance

Reviewers should confirm that the manuscript includes:

• Approval from a recognized ethics review committee or institutional review board (IRB) where applicable.

• A statement confirming informed consent from participants when human subjects are involved.

• Compliance with international ethical standards such as those outlined by the World Health Organization.

If ethical approval is missing or unclear, reviewers should request clarification.

9. Authors’ Contributions

The manuscript should clearly specify the individual contributions of each author, including roles such as:

• Study conception and design

• Data collection

• Data analysis

• Manuscript drafting

• Critical review and editing

This ensures transparency and accountability in authorship.

10. References and Citation Style

Reviewers should ensure that:

• References are relevant, recent, and appropriate.

• Citations follow either APA style or Vancouver style consistently throughout the manuscript.

• Sources are credible and accurately cited.

• Excessive self-citation or irrelevant references are avoided.

11. Final Recommendation

At the end of the review, reviewers should provide a recommendation:

• Accept without revision

• Minor revision

• Major revision

• Reject

Reviewers should clearly justify their recommendation with specific and constructive comments.

✔ Note to Reviewers
The editorial board of JAEP Health Sciences values the critical role of peer reviewers in maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of the journal. Reviewers are encouraged to provide feedback that supports both scientific rigor and the development of authors’ work.