Skip to content

Environmental Health Perspectives

Facebook Page EHP Twitter Feed Open Access icon  

After You Submit

EHP Peer-Review Policies and Procedures

The goal of EHP’s editorial process is to provide authors with constructive, fair, and timely reviews. Editorial policies are established and upheld by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC), in consultation with the EHP editorial team and a board of Associate Editors (AEs). These policies, in turn, are used to inform decisions regarding the suitability of manuscripts for publication.

Preliminary Evaluation

Manuscripts submitted to EHP are evaluated by the EIC and EHP science editors, often in consultation with an AE, to determine suitability to undergo peer review based on the following criteria:

Authors are notified by the EIC if their paper is not selected for peer review, typically within 1–3 weeks. A manuscript may be rejected without review if it is viewed as topically inappropriate, does not meet the journal standards as outlined in EHP’s author guidelines, or is otherwise poorly suited for eventual publication in EHP. In 2017, approximately 80% of submissions were rejected without review.

Peer Review

Papers that meet EHP standards are assigned to an AE with expertise specific to the topic. AEs solicit peer reviewers and may draw from EHP’s Editorial Review Board (ERB). EHP AEs and ERB members are made up of experts from across many disciplines that comprise the environmental health sciences. Original Research Articles, Commentaries, and Reviews undergo rigorous peer review in “single blind” fashion; editors and reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Based on the reviewers’ comments and appraisals of the manuscript, the AE recommends a decision (reject, revise, accept) to EHP. The EIC or Science Editor may add additional comments before sending the decision letter to the authors. The editors may also seek feedback from additional reviewers if needed. Manuscripts may undergo more than one round of revisions. Criteria for acceptance include transparent reporting, scientific soundness, and importance of results in moving the field forward.

Technical Editing

In addition to revisions recommended by peer reviewers, authors may be asked to revise text, tables, and figures to ensure clarity and conformity with EHP requirements.


EHP may reject a manuscript at any stage of review. Authors may appeal for reconsideration but must present a substantive scientific argument; simply stating that the authors can address the reviewers’ comments is insufficient. Appeals for reconsideration should be sent to

Manuscript Revision Policies

If EHP requests revisions, submit all manuscript materials through Editorial Manager. Files that have not been revised since the previous submission may be selected from the File Inventory in Editorial Manager and appended to the revised submission. You must upload the following for each round of revision:

Failure to submit the necessary files can result in a delay of the review process.

Press Releases and Embargo Policy

Authors are responsible for arranging media outreach with their own press offices in conjunction with EHP, as the journal does not issue press releases. EHP’s embargo policy is designed to support our continuous publication model of publishing manuscripts as quickly as possible. EHP is therefore unable to accommodate requests for specific publication dates or times. Articles go online in the order in which they are finalized for publication, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time.

Approximately 2–3 days prior to publication, authors will receive notification of the date their article will be published. They will also receive a PDF copy of the article to be distributed under embargo. EHP strongly recommends that press offices prepare outreach materials as early as possible (e.g., as soon as the article is accepted) so they are ready to distribute on short notice.

Press releases must include a link to the article. EHP staff are available to review press releases upon request. Please contact Susan M. Booker, EHP News Editor, if you have questions.

Copyediting and Page Proofs

EHP uses an online proofing system that requires authors to review proofs in PDF form. Authors will be notified by email when their proofs are ready for review, with instructions for logging into the system and completing the proofing process.

The copyedited proofs of a manuscript may be slightly different from the accepted manuscript as a result of the editing process, but no substantive changes will have been introduced. At the proof stage authors should request only minor changes, such as spelling, grammar, clarification, and referencing.

Continuous Publication

EHP operates under an article-by-article publishing model known as continuous publication. Under the continuous publication model, new articles are published in their final form every day, instead of waiting to release final content on only one day each month.

EHP content is organized by volumes and issues. On the first day of each month, a new issue is opened. The issue populates itself in real time throughout the month and closes on the last day of the month. The process then starts anew on the first day of the next month, with a new issue opening for final content.

After final publication, EHP submits articles for indexing in PubMed and PubMed Central.

Citation Identifier

EHP employs 6-digit Citation Identifiers (CIDs) to identify specific articles. In the PDF version of an article, page identifiers are appended to the end of the CID on each page; for example, 047015-1 on the first page, 047015-2 on the second page, etc. However, when citing an EHP article that has been published with a CID, do not include the page identifiers from the PDF; use only the 6-digit number, set where the page range would have gone previously. For example:

Smith J. 2017. Title of article. Environ Health Perspect 125(4):047015, 10.1289/EHPXX.

WP-Backgrounds Lite by InoPlugs Web Design and Juwelier Schönmann 1010 Wien