A detailed overview of how manuscripts are evaluated, reviewed, and published at AJHCS
The American Journal of Healthcare Strategy (AJHCS) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. In double-blind review, both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities are concealed throughout the evaluation process, ensuring impartial assessment based solely on scholarly merit.
Our review process follows the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and adheres to the principles of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
Each manuscript passes through the following stages from submission to publication. Typical total time from submission to first decision is 4–6 weeks; total time from submission to publication (including revisions) is 8–14 weeks.
Authors submit their manuscript via the AJHCS online portal. The submission must include all required components: title page, blinded manuscript, abstract, keywords, author declarations, and any supplementary materials.
The Editor-in-Chief or a Section Editor conducts an initial assessment for scope, completeness, methodological soundness, and adherence to submission guidelines. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal scope or do not meet minimum quality standards are desk-rejected at this stage with feedback to the author.
The handling editor identifies and invites 2-3 independent reviewers with relevant subject matter expertise. Reviewers are selected based on domain knowledge, prior review quality, and absence of conflicts of interest. If the initial invitees decline, alternative reviewers are identified.
Reviewers evaluate the blinded manuscript against AJHCS evaluation criteria: methodological rigor, originality, clarity, relevance to healthcare strategy, ethical compliance, and statistical validity. Each reviewer submits a structured report with a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject) and detailed feedback for the authors.
The handling editor synthesizes reviewer reports and makes a decision: accept as-is, accept with minor revisions, request major revisions and re-review, or reject. The decision letter includes anonymized reviewer comments and editorial guidance. Authors receive the decision via email with full review reports.
Authors address reviewer and editor comments in a revised manuscript accompanied by a point-by-point response letter. For minor revisions, the editor may make the final decision. For major revisions, the manuscript is returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
Accepted manuscripts undergo professional copyediting for grammar, style, and formatting consistency. Authors review galley proofs and approve the final version. DOI is assigned and metadata registered with Crossref.
The final article is published on the AJHCS website under a CC-BY 4.0 license with full open access. The article is simultaneously deposited with indexing services including Google Scholar, Crossref, and Semantic Scholar.
AJHCS maintains a diverse pool of qualified peer reviewers drawn from academia, healthcare systems, consulting, and government agencies. Reviewers are selected for each manuscript based on their specific expertise relative to the submission’s subject matter.
Reviewers typically hold a doctoral degree (PhD, DrPH, MD, JD, or equivalent) in healthcare administration, public health, health policy, health economics, nursing, medicine, or a related discipline.
Demonstrated expertise in one or more areas within the journal scope, evidenced by a track record of peer-reviewed publications, academic appointments, or significant professional experience in healthcare strategy and leadership.
Active involvement in research, either as an independent investigator, principal investigator, or co-investigator on funded research projects. Familiarity with both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies is valued.
Current affiliation with an accredited academic institution, healthcare system, research organization, consulting firm, or government agency. Reviewers must be in good standing with their institution and free of sanctions.
Willingness to adhere to COPE guidelines, maintain confidentiality of reviewed manuscripts, disclose any potential conflicts of interest, and provide fair, constructive, and timely feedback.
AJHCS is committed to transparency regarding our editorial performance. The following metrics reflect our current review operations.
Note: Metrics are updated periodically and reflect average performance. Individual manuscript timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, revision complexity, and submission volume.
AJHCS requires all parties involved in the peer review process—authors, reviewers, and editors—to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity or integrity of the review.
Authors must disclose all financial and non-financial relationships that could be perceived as influencing the research. This includes funding sources, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications, and personal relationships. Declarations of interest must be submitted with the manuscript.
Reviewers must decline to review any manuscript where they have a conflict of interest, including: personal or professional relationship with any author; financial interest in the outcome; recent collaboration (within 3 years) with any author; affiliation with the same institution as any author; or competitive interests that could bias their assessment. Reviewers must notify the editor immediately if a conflict is identified after accepting a review.
Editors must recuse themselves from handling any manuscript where they have a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest. In such cases, the manuscript is reassigned to another editor. The Editor-in-Chief serves as the final arbiter in cases of disputed conflicts.
Following peer review, the handling editor makes one of the following decisions based on reviewer recommendations and editorial assessment.
The manuscript is accepted for publication as submitted or with only minor copyediting changes. This decision is rare on first submission.
The manuscript requires small changes (clarifications, additional references, minor restructuring) before acceptance. The editor typically makes the final decision without re-review.
Substantial changes are required (additional analysis, restructuring, methodological clarification). The revised manuscript will be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
The manuscript is not suitable for publication in AJHCS. Reasons may include lack of originality, methodological flaws, insufficient relevance to the journal scope, or irremediable quality issues. Authors receive detailed feedback.
The final decision rests with the handling editor and is based on the totality of reviewer feedback, the manuscript’s scholarly contribution, and alignment with the journal’s mission. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; the editor may reach a different conclusion when the reviews are conflicting or when additional factors warrant consideration. All decisions are made independently, without influence from external parties, funders, or advertisers.
Authors who believe their manuscript was rejected in error or who wish to contest an editorial decision may submit a formal appeal. AJHCS is committed to fair and transparent handling of all appeals.
Send a written appeal to editor@ajhcs.org within 30 days of the decision. The appeal must include the manuscript ID, a detailed point-by-point rebuttal addressing each reviewer concern, and an explanation of why the author believes the decision should be reconsidered.
The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal alongside the original reviews and the manuscript. If warranted, the Editor-in-Chief may seek an opinion from an additional independent reviewer or consult the Editorial Board.
The author will receive a response within 14 business days. The appeal decision is final. Possible outcomes include: upholding the original decision, inviting a revised manuscript for re-review, or (in rare cases) overturning the rejection. Authors are encouraged to consider reviewer feedback even if their appeal is unsuccessful, as it may strengthen resubmission to AJHCS or another journal.
AJHCS values the essential contribution of peer reviewers. Reviewers are recognized in the following ways:
We are always seeking qualified reviewers with expertise in healthcare strategy, health policy, hospital administration, and related fields. If you are interested in contributing to the peer review process, please contact us.
Contact reviewers@ajhcs.orgQuestions about our peer review process? Contact the editorial office at editor@ajhcs.org. For reviewer guidelines and evaluation criteria, see our Reviewer Guidelines.
