Peer Review Process

Global Health Administrative and Management (GHAM) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, scientific integrity, and relevance of all published manuscripts. In the double-blind review system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process to minimize bias and promote objective evaluation.

The editorial and peer review process consists of the following stages:

1. Initial Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. Submitted manuscripts must comply with the journal's author guidelines, formatting requirements, and ethical standards.

2. Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Fits the aims and scope of the journal.
  • Demonstrates sufficient originality and scientific merit.
  • Meets minimum methodological and reporting standards.
  • Complies with ethical requirements.
  • Adheres to the journal's formatting guidelines.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).

3. Plagiarism Screening

All manuscripts undergo plagiarism screening using similarity detection software before being sent for peer review. Manuscripts with unacceptable levels of text similarity, evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other forms of academic misconduct will be rejected or returned to the authors for clarification.

4. Assignment to Reviewers

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent experts with relevant expertise in the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

5. Double-Blind Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty
  • Scientific significance
  • Relevance to healthcare administration, management, and global health
  • Methodological rigor
  • Data quality and analysis
  • Ethical compliance
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Interpretation of findings
  • Quality of discussion and conclusions
  • Adequacy of references

Reviewers provide constructive comments for both the authors and the editor, along with one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

6. Editorial Decision

The Handling Editor considers the reviewers' recommendations and makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Invite major revisions and resubmission
  • Reject

The Editor-in-Chief retains the final authority regarding all publication decisions.

7. Revision

Authors receiving revision requests should submit:

  • A revised manuscript.
  • A detailed point-by-point response to each reviewer comment.
  • A clear explanation of any recommendations that were not adopted.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

8. Final Decision

Following satisfactory revision, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, typesetting, and publication.

9. Publication

Accepted articles are published online immediately after completing the production process and are assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), where applicable.

Review Timeline

GHAM strives to provide an efficient and timely editorial process:

  • Initial editorial screening: 5–10 working days
  • Peer review: 3–6 weeks
  • Revision by authors: 2–4 weeks
  • Final editorial decision: 1–2 weeks
  • Online publication after acceptance: 2–3 weeks

Actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Manuscripts may not be disclosed, discussed, or used for personal research purposes without the explicit permission of the journal.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. Individuals with conflicts of interest will not participate in the editorial decision-making or peer-review process for the affected manuscript.

Appeals

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals should provide a clear scientific justification and will be evaluated independently. The Editor-in-Chief's decision following an appeal is final.