Review policy

The manuscript Review Policy is an integral part of the Editorial policy of the Journal of Health Development (the Journal) and regulates the procedure for peer review of manuscripts in order to ensure the high quality of the Journal.

This Manuscript Review Policy governs the relationship between the participants in the publication process with unconditional observance of the main provisions of the Publication Ethics of the Journal.

The Editorial Staff of the Journal exclusively uses the “double-blind” Peer Review Policy. The selection of Reviewers is carried out by the decision of the Editorial Board of the Journal. The peer review is carried out by two experts in the field of public health, who have deep professional knowledge and experience in a specific area.

The term for consideration of the article by one Reviewer should not exceed two weeks from the date of receipt of the article for review, except for cases requiring a deeper analysis of the manuscript.

Material submitted for review is considered a confidential document. The Editorial Staff of the Journal notifies the Reviewers that the manuscripts sent to them refer to information that is not subject to disclosure. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the Reviewer claims that the materials presented in the article are unreliable or falsified.

Reviewers do not have the right to make copies of manuscripts for use in personal research and transfer manuscripts (or part of a manuscript) for reviewing to another person in accordance with the Ethical standards and requirements of the Journal for Reviewers.

General requirements to the content of review:

1) The review must contain a qualified analysis of the manuscript, an objective reasoned assessment of the manuscript;

2) The review should reflect an expert assessment of the quality of the manuscript, namely:

- correspondence of the content of the manuscript to its title;

- analysis and assessment of the scientific level, novelty, significance and relevance of the topic (problem);

- theoretical or applied significance of the research;

- correspondence of the methods, recommendations and research results used by the Author to the modern achievements of science and practice;

- the reliability of the stated facts;

- completeness of the topic;

- expediency and validity of the presence of tables, graphs, and other illustrative materials in the manuscript;

- correlation of the Author's conclusions with existing scientific concepts;

- validity of presentation and conclusions;

- reliability and validity of conclusions;

- assessment of the personal contribution of the Author of the manuscript to the solution of the research topic (problem);

- correspondence of the language, style and logic of presentation to the scientific nature of the manuscript;

- availability of references to used literature and other sources of information;

- the presence of shortcomings, inaccuracies and errors made by the Author of the manuscript.

The review should contain a recommendation for the publication of the manuscript, for revision (addition, clarification) or rejection of the manuscript.

A written review of the manuscript is sent to the Journal. A review of the manuscript can be written in free form in compliance with the requirements of this Policy.

If the review of the article contains indications of the need to correct it, then the article is sent to the Author for appropriate revision. If the article, following the recommendations of the Reviewer, has undergone significant copyright revision, it is sent for reconsideration to the same Reviewer who made critical comments.

The Editorial Staff of the Journal reserves the right to reject articles if the Author is unable or unwilling to take into account the wishes of the Editorial Staff. If there are negative reviews of the manuscript from two different experts or one review of its revised version, the article is rejected from publication without further consideration.

The decision on a possible publication after reviewing is made by the Editor-in-Chief, and, if necessary, by the Editorial Board. A reasoned refusal is sent to the Author of an article not accepted for publication.





Dear Reviewer,

All manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Office of the of the Journal undergo "double-blind" Peer Review Policy by two experts. The selection of Reviewers is carried out by the decision of the Editorial Staff. Highly qualified specialists-scientists in the field of public health with deep professional knowledge and work experience can be involved in reviewing the manuscripts.

In developing this information, the Editors of the Journal used the main Policy and Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for Reviewers.



When you receive a request to review a specific article, agree to peer review if you are competent enough to review the article.

After receiving an invitation letter from the Journal Editor to review a particular manuscript, you can agree to review or refuse. By agreeing to review, you will contribute to the work of our Journal.

We inform you that the reviewing of the articles of the Journal is a free process. If you refuse to review, there are no consequences for the Reviewer.

The request for reviewing will indicate the date by which it is necessary to give an opinion on a specific article. The Editorial Board of the Journal asks you to inform about your decision to accept the article for review within two days. If you do not have time to give a review of the article in terms of time, please notify the Editor about it. The Editorial Board of the Journal may ask you to recommend another specialist on the profile of the article or send a request to extend the review period.



Conflict of interest information should be indicated in the response to the Editor's proposal. The Reviewer's openness in this matter will help the Editor to make a proper decision. The fact that there is a conflict of interest does not always entail a ban on reviewing an article.

Examples of conflict of interests: Reviewer and Author work in the same department of the same organization; if the Reviewer has previously collaborated with the Author on this article; personal, professional or financial interest of the Reviewer.

For additional guidance on avoiding potential conflicts of interest in the peer review process, see the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for reviewers.



We kindly ask you to treat the manuscript as a confidential document. The article (or part of it) you are considering should not be disclosed or discussed with other people, except in special cases when it becomes necessary to seek specific scientific advice. In such a case, the Editor must be informed.

The information obtained by the Reviewer from the manuscript under consideration should not be available for citation until the material is officially published in our Journal.



In spite of adhering to the general principles of the Peer Review Policy of the Journal, the Reviewers are required to: destroy a copy of the manuscript in case of refusal to review;

  • objectively judge the manuscript and not subject to personal criticism;
  • respect the intellectual independence of Authors;
  • clearly explain the judgments regarding the manuscript in question so that Editors and Authors can understand the basis of the comments and provide the necessary references, where appropriate.
  • inform the Editor of any similarity of the submitted manuscript with another, previously published or pending in another journal;
  • ensure that all unpublished data, information, interpretation and discussion in the manuscript in question remain confidential and not used for their own research;
  • warn the Editor if the manuscript contains plagiarism, falsified or altered data;
  • not invite Authors to include links to their own work (Reviewer), in order to increase the number of citations of their previously published manuscripts.
  • not to save or copy the manuscript submitted for consideration in any form, if necessary, comply with the data protection rules.

For more information about the ethics of scientific publications see the section "Publication ethics".



The Editorial Board of the Journal maintains a high level of peer review (“double- blind” peer review) which ensures the protection of the personal data of the Reviewer. We kindly ask you not to identify yourself by indicating your name in the text of the review or in the title of the review file.



Review is made in free form. The text of the review can be typed in a special window of the Journal website.

When reviewing we ask you to evaluate the completeness and quality of the manuscript, focusing on the following questions:


Does the content of the article submitted to the Editorial Office correspond to the subject of the Journal?


What is the scientific novelty of the presented work?


What is the practical significance of the research results obtained??


Does the content of the article correspond to its title?


Is the relevance and aim of the study clearly stated?


Are the research methods used in the work acceptable for solving the assigned tasks?


Does the "Materials and Methods" section contain information about research methods sufficient to reproduce them? (if applicable)


Have statistical analysis methods been applied correctly and have their results been interpreted? Can the presented results be assessed as reliable? (if applicable)


Did the conclusions reflect the achievement of the research aim?


Are all conclusions based on the data provided in the article?


Does the abstract reflect the main content of the work and the results obtained?


Are the keywords selected adequately, is there enough of them?


Does the list of cited literature correspond to the current state of the problem considered by the Author?


Is the article available to the readers for whom it is intended, in terms of language, presentation style?


Are illustrative materials / tables / formulas presented in sufficient volume and are they informative? Do they duplicate the data given in the text?


Does the article information of advertising character?


What exactly are the positive aspects of the presented work?


Indicate the identified shortcomings of the article. What corrections and additions need to be made by the Authors?



During the review process, you have the opportunity to send separate comments to the Editor, which will be inaccessible to the Authors. Comments should be clear, constructive and courteous. When pointing out a certain flaw in the manuscript, you should clearly state your point of view.

At the end of the peer review process, you need to categorize your recommendations for the article:

  • -uncorrected acceptance;
  • -requires minor corrections;
  • -requires major corrections;

-rejection (with explanation of reason for rejection).