Reviewer Duties and Responsibilities

The management of the Journal of Epidemiology and Public Health (JEPH) recognizes peer review as an essential component of scholarly communication and scientific integrity. Reviewers play a vital role in assisting the Editor-in-Chief and editorial team in making informed editorial decisions and helping authors improve the quality, clarity, and scientific rigor of their manuscripts. The journal management expects all reviewers to fulfill their responsibilities objectively, ethically, professionally, and within the agreed timeframe.

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review provides an independent assessment that assists the Editor-in-Chief in determining the suitability of manuscripts for publication. Reviewers are expected to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, clarity, and validity of the research and to provide constructive recommendations that support editorial decision-making and manuscript improvement. Reviewers should recognize that their recommendations inform the editorial process, while the final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor.

Reviewers shall also remain alert to potential ethical concerns, including suspected research misconduct, plagiarism, substantial overlap with previously published work, inappropriate authorship, questionable data integrity, and other violations of publication ethics. Any concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editor, supported by clear explanations or relevant evidence where available. If reviewers identify findings, observations, methods, or arguments that have previously been reported, they should provide appropriate references to the relevant literature.

All reviewer reports must be objective, respectful, evidence-based, and scientifically constructive. Reviewers shall assess the manuscript rather than make personal judgments about the authors. Hostile, discriminatory, offensive, biased, or otherwise unprofessional comments are not acceptable. The journal management reserves the right to edit reviewer comments for professionalism or withhold inappropriate comments from authors when necessary to maintain the integrity and quality of the peer-review process.

Reviewers must not engage in citation manipulation, including coercive recommendations to cite their own publications or other works without genuine scholarly justification. They shall disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review and notify the editor if a conflict becomes apparent during the evaluation. Reviewers must also comply with the journal's policies on the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies and must not use unauthorized tools in ways that compromise manuscript confidentiality, research integrity, or the independence of their assessment.

Reviewers who consider themselves insufficiently qualified to assess a manuscript or who cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe shall promptly inform the editor and decline the invitation or request an appropriate arrangement. Reviewers are encouraged to suggest alternative qualified reviewers when appropriate. By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to maintain confidentiality, provide a timely and thorough assessment, and uphold the journal's standards of publication ethics and professional conduct.

Standards of objectivity and competing interests

The management of the Journal of Epidemiology and Public Health (JEPH) requires reviewers to conduct manuscript evaluations objectively, impartially, and professionally. Reviewers shall assess manuscripts based on their scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, validity, and relevance to the journal's scope, without personal bias or discrimination. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. All comments and recommendations should be expressed clearly, respectfully, and constructively, with supporting scientific arguments and relevant evidence.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests to the editor before accepting a review invitation. The editor will assess the disclosed interests and determine whether the reviewer may proceed with the review or should withdraw to preserve the fairness and impartiality of the peer-review process. Reviewers are expected to cooperate with the editor in resolving any concerns regarding potential bias.

Potential competing interests include, but are not limited to:
- Recent collaboration: 
The reviewer has co-authored publications, conducted research, or participated in other significant academic collaborations with one or more authors within the previous three years.
- Institutional affiliation:
The reviewer and one or more authors are affiliated with the same institution or have a professional relationship that could compromise impartiality
- Personal relationships:
The reviewer has a close personal relationship, family relationship, or personal dispute with one or more authors
- Financial or professional interests:
The reviewer has financial, commercial, academic, or professional interests that could be affected by the publication or rejection of the manuscript
- Academic competition:
The reviewer has a direct competitive interest in the research, findings, methods, or intellectual property discussed in the manuscript.

Reviewers shall promptly inform the editor if any competing interest arises or becomes apparent during the review process. They must not use confidential information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, or financial advantage. The journal management is committed to ensuring that competing interests are handled transparently and that all manuscripts receive a fair, independent, and scientifically rigorous evaluation in accordance with JEPH editorial policies and recognized publication ethics standards.

Citations Practices

Journal of Epidemiology and Public Health (JEPH) requires reviewers shall not request or recommend citations to their own publications, publications authored by their associates, or other specific works for the purpose of increasing citation counts, enhancing academic visibility, or influencing journal metrics.

Any recommended references must be directly relevant to the manuscript and supported by a clear scientific rationale. Reviewers shall provide complete bibliographic details and explain how each suggested reference contributes to the manuscript's theoretical background, methodology, interpretation, or discussion. Authors must not be pressured to include references that are unnecessary or unrelated to their research.

The editor will assess citation recommendations to ensure that they are appropriate, scientifically justified, and free from coercive or manipulative practices. The journal reserves the right to remove inappropriate, irrelevant, excessive, or potentially coercive citation requests from reviewer reports before sharing them with authors. Reviewers are expected to comply with JEPH policies on publication ethics and responsible citation practices to maintain the fairness, transparency, and integrity of the peer-review process.

Confidentiality

Reviewers are required to treat all manuscripts submitted for review, together with reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and related materials, as strictly confidential. Reviewers shall not share, distribute, reproduce, or discuss manuscripts or information obtained during the peer-review process with unauthorized individuals. Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding a manuscript without prior authorization from the editor.

Reviewers shall comply with JEPH policies governing the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies during peer review. Manuscripts, unpublished data, reviewer reports, and confidential editorial communications must not be uploaded to or processed through unauthorized AI tools or external services that could compromise confidentiality, data security, or intellectual property. Any permitted use of AI-assisted technologies must comply with the journal's applicable policies and must not replace the reviewer's independent scientific judgment.

Reviewers who wish to consult colleagues or involve another researcher in a co-reviewing arrangement must obtain prior approval from the editor. Any approved participation must preserve manuscript confidentiality, ensure that the additional reviewer has appropriate expertise, and provide suitable acknowledgment of their contribution in accordance with the journal's procedures.

Unpublished materials, data, findings, and ideas disclosed in a manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research or for personal, professional, or financial advantage without the author's express written consent. Reviewers shall protect all privileged information obtained through peer review and refrain from any use or disclosure that could disadvantage authors or compromise the integrity of the editorial process. These confidentiality obligations apply throughout and after the peer-review process, regardless of the editorial decision or publication status of the manuscript.