Methodological Rigor
Is the research design appropriate for the question posed? Are the methods clearly described and reproducible? Are limitations acknowledged?
Standards and expectations for peer reviewers contributing to the integrity of AJHCS.
AJHCS employs a single-blind peer review process, in which the identities of the reviewers are kept confidential while the authors' identities are known to the reviewers. This approach allows reviewers to provide candid assessments while maintaining accountability in the review process.
Our editorial practices are guided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. We are committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, fairness, and transparency in all aspects of the publication process.
We value constructive, developmental feedback that helps authors strengthen their work. Reviews should identify both merits and areas for improvement, offering specific and actionable guidance rather than vague criticism.
Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts across the following dimensions. Not all criteria will apply equally to every submission type.
Is the research design appropriate for the question posed? Are the methods clearly described and reproducible? Are limitations acknowledged?
Does the manuscript offer new insights, frameworks, or evidence? Does it advance the field of healthcare strategy in a meaningful way?
Is the manuscript well-structured and logically organized? Is the writing clear, concise, and appropriate for a scholarly audience?
Does the work address a significant question in healthcare strategy, policy, administration, or related disciplines? Is it timely and applicable?
Does the research adhere to ethical standards? Are conflicts of interest disclosed? Is informed consent and IRB approval documented where applicable?
Where applicable, are statistical methods appropriate and correctly applied? Are results presented clearly with effect sizes and confidence intervals?
Our review process is designed to balance thoroughness with timeliness, ensuring authors receive decisions as quickly as possible.
Editors identify and invite qualified reviewers based on expertise and availability.
Day 0Reviewers confirm availability and absence of conflicts of interest within 3 business days.
Within 3 daysReviewers evaluate the manuscript using our structured evaluation criteria and submit their report.
Within 21 daysThe editorial team synthesizes reviews and communicates a decision to the author.
Within 7 daysPeer review is foundational to scholarly publishing. Reviewers are expected to uphold these core responsibilities.
Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. Do not share, discuss, or distribute any aspect of the submission with others without editorial permission.
Provide an impartial assessment based on scholarly merit. Personal criticism of the author is never appropriate. Focus on the quality of the work.
Complete reviews within the agreed-upon timeframe. If you are unable to meet the deadline, notify the editor as soon as possible so alternative arrangements can be made.
Offer specific, actionable suggestions that help the author improve the manuscript. Identify both strengths and areas for improvement.
Decline invitations to review if you have a personal, financial, or professional relationship with the author, or if you cannot provide an unbiased assessment.
We welcome applications from qualified researchers, practitioners, and academics with expertise in healthcare strategy and related fields. Join our reviewer community and contribute to advancing scholarship in the discipline.
Contact Us at reviewers@ajhcs.org