1. Aim of Peer Review

Health and Disease Research seeks to publish work that contributes to reliable knowledge in health, disease, clinical and biomedical research, public health, disease prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and related areas within the journal’s stated scope. Peer review helps the editor determine whether a submission is scientifically sound, ethically responsible, clearly reported, and appropriate for the journal’s readership.

Reviewers are asked to assess the quality and reliability of the evidence, not whether they personally agree with the authors’ conclusions. Novelty and potential importance should be considered alongside methodological validity and transparent reporting.

2. Reviewer Selection and Acceptance

Reviewers may be selected from the journal’s editorial board or invited from qualified researchers and professionals at relevant institutions. Selection should be based on subject expertise and the ability to provide an independent assessment. A manuscript should be assigned only to an invited reviewer who agrees to undertake the review.

Before accepting, reviewers should confirm that the topic and methods fall within their competence, that they can meet the stated deadline, and that no actual, potential, or perceived competing interest would prevent an impartial assessment. Reviewers should inform the editor promptly if a conflict or other concern becomes apparent.

3. Key Questions for Every Submission

• Is the research question, clinical problem, or public health issue clearly stated and relevant to the journal?
• Does the manuscript make an identifiable contribution, and is the relationship to existing evidence explained fairly?
• Is the study design suitable for answering the stated question?
• Are the participants, samples, setting, procedures, variables, outcomes, and analyses described adequately?
• Are the results internally consistent, transparently presented, and supported by the data?
• Are the conclusions proportionate to the findings, with uncertainty and limitations acknowledged?
• Are ethical oversight, consent, registration, funding, and competing interests reported where applicable?
• Would the manuscript be understandable and useful to its intended scientific or health-professional readership?

4. Guidance by Manuscript Section

Title and abstract. Check that the title accurately represents the study and does not overstate its findings. The abstract should briefly and accurately present the objective, design, methods, principal results, and conclusion. Verify that numerical results and claims in the abstract agree with the main text.

Introduction. Assess whether the background is relevant and sufficiently current, the evidence gap is clear, and the objectives or hypotheses follow logically from the rationale. Recommend removing irrelevant background or unsupported claims.

Methods. Examine the design, setting, recruitment or sampling, eligibility criteria, sample-size rationale, measurements, procedures, outcome definitions, statistical methods, and handling of missing data, as applicable. Determine whether the methods are sufficiently detailed for readers to judge validity and, where feasible, reproduce the work.

Results. Check that findings are presented in a logical order and correspond to the stated objectives and methods. Examine tables and figures for clarity, appropriate denominators, units, uncertainty measures, and consistency with the text. Distinguish prespecified outcomes from exploratory analyses where relevant.

Discussion. Assess whether the authors interpret findings cautiously, compare them with relevant evidence, explain important similarities or differences, and discuss implications without claiming more than the data support. Check that important limitations and plausible alternative explanations are acknowledged.

Conclusion and recommendations. Ensure that the conclusion answers the research question and is supported by the results. Recommendations should be feasible and proportionate to the evidence, particularly where clinical practice or public health policy could be affected.

References, tables, figures, and supplementary material. Check the relevance and accuracy of citations, the consistency of references, the clarity of visual material, and whether supplementary files support the methods or findings. Do not request citations merely to increase the citation count of a particular author or journal.

5. Methodological and Statistical Considerations

Reviewers should assess whether the methods and analysis are appropriate for the question and study design. Reviewers are not expected to perform a full reanalysis of the data unless that is part of the agreed review, but they should identify issues that could materially affect the findings.

• For observational studies, consider participant selection, exposure and outcome definitions, confounding, bias, and whether the design supports the authors’ interpretation.
• For clinical trials or intervention studies, consider allocation methods, comparator selection, outcome definitions, follow-up, analysis populations, adverse events, and trial registration where applicable.
• For diagnostic or prognostic studies, assess the reference standard, participant spectrum, validation, performance measures, and risk of overfitting where relevant.
• For laboratory, experimental, or animal studies, assess controls, replication, sample-size justification, measurement validity, and the suitability of statistical tests.
• For systematic reviews and meta-analyses, consider the search strategy, eligibility criteria, study selection, risk-of-bias assessment, synthesis methods, heterogeneity, and certainty of evidence.
• For case reports or case series, assess clinical relevance, clarity of the clinical timeline, supporting evidence, differential diagnosis, outcome, and consent for publication where required.
• For all quantitative work, check whether effect estimates, uncertainty intervals, and exact statistical information are reported appropriately. Statistical significance alone should not be treated as proof of clinical or public health importance.

6. Research Ethics in Health and Disease Research

Because submissions may involve patients, human participants, biological samples, health records, animals, or sensitive information, reviewers should examine the ethical safeguards relevant to the work. Requirements depend on the research design and applicable institutional and national rules.

• Human participants and patient data: check for a statement of ethics committee or institutional review board approval, or a justified explanation of exemption where applicable; assess consent, privacy, confidentiality, and data protection.
• Case reports and identifiable material: consider whether consent for publication has been obtained when required, particularly where clinical details, photographs, images, or other potentially identifying information are included.
• Clinical trials: check for prospective registration where applicable, consistency between registered and reported outcomes, transparent reporting of harms, and appropriate disclosure of protocol changes.
• Animal research: check for relevant ethics approval, welfare safeguards, and reporting of procedures in accordance with applicable standards.
• Sensitive or vulnerable populations: consider whether recruitment, consent, safeguards, and interpretation respect participants’ rights and dignity.
• Funding and competing interests: check whether financial support, relevant relationships, and potential conflicts are disclosed.
• Research integrity: report specific concerns about plagiarism, duplicate publication, questionable data, image manipulation, or inconsistent results confidentially to the editor.

Reviewers should not request confidential patient information or attempt to identify participants. They should not investigate suspected misconduct independently or make allegations in public or in comments to authors without appropriate editorial handling.

7. Confidentiality, Conflicts of Interest, and AI

All submitted manuscripts and review correspondence must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscript files, disclose unpublished findings, contact authors directly, or use the material for personal advantage without the editor’s authorisation.

Reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or perceived competing interests, including relevant financial relationships, close collaborations, institutional relationships, personal relationships, or direct academic competition. The editor will determine whether the review can proceed.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished health data, identifiable patient information, or editorial correspondence to external AI systems unless expressly permitted by the journal and appropriate confidentiality protections are in place. Any permitted AI assistance must not replace expert judgment, and reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their reports.

8. How to Write the Review

The review should help the editor reach a decision and help authors improve the manuscript. Comments should be specific, courteous, and prioritised. When possible, refer to the relevant section, page, paragraph, table, or figure.

• Overall assessment: briefly describe the manuscript’s purpose, principal contribution, and most important strengths or concerns.
• Major comments: identify issues that materially affect validity, interpretation, ethics, reporting, or suitability. Explain why each issue matters and what action would address it.
• Minor comments: list focused corrections to terminology, clarity, presentation, references, tables, figures, or grammar.
• Recommendation: select the recommendation that best reflects the concerns and strengths explained in the report.
• Confidential comments: use the confidential field for sensitive matters intended only for the editor. Do not place essential scientific criticisms exclusively in that field.

Example of a Constructive Comment

Less helpful: “The statistical analysis is poor.”

More helpful: “The Methods section does not explain how potential confounders were selected or adjusted for. Please specify the variables included in the adjusted model, justify their selection, and report the adjusted effect estimates with confidence intervals. If adjustment was not performed, acknowledge the potential for residual confounding when interpreting the findings.”

9. Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Reviewers provide advice to the editor; the editor makes the final decision. The journal may offer the following recommendation categories:

Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive changes.

Minor revision: limited corrections or clarifications are needed.

Major revision: important methodological, analytical, reporting, or interpretive issues must be addressed before reconsideration.

Reject: serious concerns about scientific validity, ethical compliance, originality, relevance, or contribution make the manuscript unsuitable for publication.

A recommendation should be consistent with the written review. Reviewers should not guarantee acceptance or rejection and should not assume that their recommendation alone determines the outcome.

10. Deadlines and Review of Revisions

Reviewers should submit their reports by the deadline stated in the invitation. If additional time is needed, they should request an extension from the editor as early as possible. If they cannot complete the review, they should decline or withdraw promptly.

When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers should assess whether the authors have responded adequately to the earlier comments and whether any remaining issues affect the reliability or interpretation of the work. New requests should be introduced only when justified by a substantive issue.

11. Contact and Policy Application

For questions about a review invitation, deadlines, competing interests, confidentiality, ethical concerns, or the review process, reviewers should contact the handling editor or the Health and Disease Research editorial office through [email protected]