journal of public health research – Editorial Policies

  • Focus and Scope
  • Section Policies
  • Peer Review Process
  • Publication Frequency
  • Open Access Policy
  • General Recommendations for Authors
  • Publication Ethics

Focus and Scope

The Journal of Public Health Research (JPHR) is an online Open Access, peer-reviewed journal in the field of public health science. The aim of the journal is to stimulate debate and dissemination of knowledge in the public health field in order to improve efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency of public health interventions to improve health outcomes of populations. This aim can only be achieved by adopting a global and multidisciplinary approach.

The Journal of Public Health Research publishes contributions from both the “traditional' disciplines of public health, including hygiene, epidemiology, health education, environmental health, occupational health, health policy, hospital management, health economics, law and ethics as well as from the area of new health care fields including social science, communication science, eHealth and mHealth philosophy, health technology assessment, genetics research implications, population-mental health, gender and disparity issues, global and migration-related themes. In support of this approach, JPHR strongly encourages the use of real multidisciplinary approaches and analyses in the manuscripts submitted to the journal. In addition to Original research, Systematic ReviewMeta-analysisMeta-synthesis and Perspectives and Debate articles, JPHR publishes newsworthy Brief Reports, Letters and Study Protocols related to public health and public health management activities.

Section Policies

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis  present or summarize data from many studies to address specific research questions related to Public Health topics. Inclusion and exclusion criteria and methods used to search the literature and to aggregate data should be clearly described.

Requirements. Unstructured abstract, max. 250 words. Text must have a max. of 8000 words and 6 tables/figures.

Original Articles

Original Articles report original scientific research in the field of public health sciences. Due to the global and multidisciplinary approach of JPHR original articles may come from any field of scientific research relevant to the study of public human health.

Requirements. Structured abstract, max. 250 words. Text must have a max. of 6000 words, 6 tables/figures in total and 40 references.

Brief Reports

Brief Reports are accounts of completed research which do not warrant regular articles, although the same standards of scientific quality apply.

Requirements. Unstructured abstract, max. 150 words. Text must have a max. of 2000 words, 3 tables/figures in total and 20 references.

Study Protocols

Study protocol  articles should provide a detailed description of the hypothesis, rationale, methodology and expected results of the study. They will be considered for peer review only if the study has received ethics approval and a grant or a formal approval from an official funding body. Protocols of randomized controlled trials should follow the CONSORT guidelines and must have a trial registration number included in the text. Proof of both ethics and funding will be required and we recommend that authors provide the relevant documentation on submission as supplementary files.
Abstract must be structured in sections: Background, Design and methods, and Expected Impact of the study for Public Health.

Requirements: structured Abstract max 250 words. Text must have max. 3000 words, max. 2 Tables/Figures and 15 references.

Perspectives and Debates

Perspectives and Debates articles should present new interesting or emerging public health topics that, starting from data based on practical research, can debate on all aspects of the subject, including perspectives about sociological impacts, economical evaluation, communication strategies, policy issues and ethical considerations.

Requirements. Unstructured abstract, max. 250 words. Text must have a max. of 4000 words, 3 tables/figures in total and 30 references.


Editorials are usually invited or addressed by editors about emerging or important issues in the field of public health.


Letters should address specific scientific issues raised by papers published by JPHR within the previous 6 months. Authors of papers cited in the Letters will be given the opportunity to respond. Letters that are highly polemic will not be published. Letters are not peer reviewed and are published at the discretion of the JPHR editors. Conclusions and opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the policies of the journal.

Requirements. No abstract is needed. Text must have a max. of 1000 words, and 3 references.


Meta-synthesis, similar to quantitative systematic reviews and statistical meta-analyses, qualitative synthesis-relying on a diverse set of techniques (e.g. meta-ethnography, meta-study, thematic synthesis), have the potential to overcome the limitations of small-scale qualitative studies and promote a greater understanding in a particular area.

Requirements: Unstructured abstract, max. 250 words. Text must have a max. of 8000 words and 6 tables/figures

Peer Review Process
Our journal follows the WAME Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals about peer-review. The Editorial Board of each journal will immediately screen all articles submitted for publication in that journal. Those articles which fail to reach the scientific standards of the journal may be declined without further review. Those articles which satisfy the requirements of the Editorial Board will be sent to a maximum of three referees. Authors are kindly required to suggest at least two potential reviewers for their manuscript.

Referees are experts in the field who have agreed to provide a rapid assessment of the article. Every effort will be made to provide an editorial decision as to acceptance for publication within 4-6 weeks of submission. Referees may request a revision of the article to be made. In this case, it is generally understood that only one revised version can be considered for a further appraisal under the peer-review system. The Editorial Board of each journal is responsible for the final selection of referees to conduct the peer-review process for that journal. The names of referees will not be made available to authors. However, referees will be informed as to the identity of the authors whose articles are subject to review. All members of the Editorial Board and referees are asked to declare any competing interests they may have in reviewing a manuscript. If on receiving the editorial decision concerning their manuscript authors are not satisfied they are invited to appeal to the Editorial Office. In cases in which this is considered appropriate a second opinion on the manuscript will be requested.

Publication Frequency

All papers are published as soon as they have been accepted, by adding them to the current volume's Table of Contents.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Pre- and post-prints

PAGEPress allows and encourages authors to deposit both their pre- and post-prints in Open-Access institutional archives or repositories. The primary benefit of pre- and post-print self-archiving is reaching a larger audience which enhances the visibility and impact of your research.

General Recommendations for Authors

All papers submitted to the Journal of Public Health Research must contain a section “Significance for public health,” not exceeding 150 words. In this section authors are to describe the significance of the research reported in the article for, and/or its impact on, public health.

The Journal of Public Health Research recommends authors refer to the available reporting guidelines for health research (see

Randomized controlled trials (CONSORT)

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA)

Observational studies (cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional designs) (STROBE)

Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD)

Qualitative studies (RATS)

Genetic association studies (STREGA)

Publication Ethics


PAGEPress strongly support the mission of the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors; all individuals collaborating with PAGEPress are strongly invited to comply with this mission.


All research articles published by PAGEPress journals are subject to a rigorous ethical standards. Our journals endorses the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the COPE International Standards for Editors and Authors Guidelines. The Editorial Board of each journal is responsible for the form the peer review process will take; therefore, all authors in the biomedical field must adhere to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. PAGEPress endorses the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Policy Statement on Geopolitical Intrusion on Editorial Decisions, too.

The Editorial Board of our journals will immediately screen all articles submitted for publication in that journal. All submissions we receive are checked for plagiarism by using online available tools as eTBLASTor iThenticate®. Any suspected misconduct ends up with a quick rejection and is then reported to the European Science Foundation and to the US Office of Research Integrity.

The European Science Foundation released a Code of Conduct on Research Integrity, which is fully supported by our journals. All authors submitting papers to our journals are required to adopt these policies.

Below some online resource to help you in understanding plagiarism:

Roig, M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. St Johns University.

Long TC, Errami M, George AC, et al. Responding to Possible Plagiarism. Science 2009; 323:1293-1294.

Lewis J, Ossowski S, Hicks J, Errami M, and Garner HR. Text similarity: an alternative way to search MEDLINE. Bioinformatics 2006; 22:2298-2304.

Conflict of Interests

Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author's institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). These relationships vary from negligible to great potential for influencing judgment. Not all relationships represent true conflict of interest. On the other hand, the potential for conflict of interest can exist regardless of whether an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.

All participants in the peer-review and publication process must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest. Disclosure of such relationships is also important in connection with editorials and review articles, because it can be more difficult to detect bias in these types of publications than in reports of original research. Editors may use information disclosed in conflict-of-interest and financial-interest statements as a basis for editorial decisions.

When authors submit a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that might bias their work. To prevent ambiguity, authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not exist. Authors should do so in the manuscript on a conflict-of-interest notification page, providing additional detail, if necessary, in a cover letter that accompanies the manuscript. Increasingly, individual studies receive funding from commercial firms, private foundations, and government. The conditions of this funding have the potential to bias and otherwise discredit the research.

Scientists have an ethical obligation to submit creditable research results for publication. Moreover, as the persons directly responsible for their work, researchers should not enter into agreements that interfere with their access to the data and their ability to analyze them independently, and to prepare and publish manuscripts. Authors should describe the role of the study sponsor, if any, in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. If the supporting source had no such involvement, the authors should so state. Biases potentially introduced when sponsors are directly involved in research are analogous to methodological biases.

Editors may request that authors of a study funded by an agency with a proprietary or financial interest in the outcome sign a statement, such as “I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.” Editors should be encouraged to review copies of the protocol and/or contracts associated with project-specific studies before accepting such studies for publication. Editors may choose not to consider an article if a sponsor has asserted control over the authors' right to publish.

Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. As in the case of authors, silence on the part of reviewers concerning potential conflicts may mean either that conflicts exist and the reviewer has failed to disclose them or conflicts do not exist. Reviewers must therefore also be asked to state explicitly whether conflicts do or do not exist. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts must have no personal, professional, or financial involvement in any of the issues they might judge. Other members of the editorial staff, if they participate in editorial decisions, must provide editors with a current description of their financial interests (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and recuse themselves from any decisions in which a conflict of interest exists.

Informed Consent

PAGEPress journals strictly follows the ICMJE Protection of Research Participants policy detailed at

Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. When informed consent has been obtained, editors may request authors to provide a copy before making the editorial decision.

Manuscripts must be reviewed with due respect for authors' confidentiality. In submitting their manuscripts for review, authors entrust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. Authors' rights may be violated by disclosure of the confidential details during review of their manuscript. Reviewers also have rights to confidentiality, which must be respected by the editor. Confidentiality may have to be breached if dishonesty or fraud is alleged but otherwise must be honored.

Editors must not disclose information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use the materials for legal proceedings.

Protection of Human Subjects and Animals in Research

When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.

See our policy about Peer Review

See our policy about Privacy