Welcome to the EHP Publishing reviewer resources! Here you will find information about our peer review policies and procedures, how to evaluate a manuscript, and how to write constructive reviewer comments.
1. Peer Review Policies
2. Evaluating the Manuscript
3. Writing Constructive Reviewer Comments
4. Reviewer Checklist
1. Peer Review Policies
1.1. Editorial Boards
Our editorial policies are established and upheld by each journal's Editorial Team, which includes the Editor-in-Chief (EIC), the Board of Deputy Editors (DEs), and Staff Editors.
Deputy Editors (DEs)
DEs help maintain the integrity and quality of the research published in EHP Publishing journals. They work closely with the Editor-in-Chief and Staff Editors to determine whether a manuscript is within the journal’s scope, meets journal standards, and is suitable for peer review.
DEs assign manuscripts to Associate Editors (AEs) for handling. They also work with the AEs in making recommendations for decisions on manuscripts after reviews are completed.
- Environmental Health Perspectives Board of Deputy Editors
- Journal of Health and Pollution Board of Deputy Editors
Associate Editors (AEs)
AEs locate qualified peer reviewers for articles and ensure that each review is rigorous, fair, timely, and complete.
They also work with the DEs to make recommendations for decisions on manuscripts after reviews are completed.
- Environmental Health Perspectives Board of Associate Editors
- Journal of Health and Pollution Board of Associate Editors
Staff Editors
Our Staff Editors help triage submissions and ensure rigorous and fair peer review. They also work with authors to ensure transparent, reproducible reporting of their approach and findings.
1.2. Confidentiality
By accepting the invitation to review, you agree to keep the content of the submitted manuscript and all reviewer and editor comments confidential. We do allow the sharing of submissions in two situations, provided the same level of confidentiality is maintained by all:
- If you believe that consultation with a colleague would benefit your review of the manuscript, email the EHP or JHP journal office and obtain permission before sharing the manuscript. When you submit your review, disclose the colleague's name in the "Comments to Editor" field.
- If you wish to collaborate with a mentee to complete your review, accept the invitation and email the EHP or JHP journal office to obtain permission before sharing the manuscript. When you submit your review, disclose the mentee’s name and contact information in the "Comments to Editor" field.
EHP Publishing strongly encourages and supports the training of early-career researchers, including their involvement in mentored peer review. However, note that as the invited reviewer, you are ultimately responsible for the quality and content of the review.
Single Anonymous Peer Review
EHP Publishing uses a "single anonymous" peer review process, in which reviewers know the identities of the authors but the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers. Reviewers are discouraged from identifying themselves or providing information that may reveal their identities to the authors.
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review
Manuscripts submitted to an EHP Publishing journal may not, under any circumstance, be uploaded into a generative machine learning model (chatbot, etc.), as this would be considered breach of confidentiality.
1.3. Conflicts of Interest
If a potential or perceived conflict of interest precludes you from providing an objective evaluation of the manuscript, decline the invitation to review. If you are not sure whether you have a conflict, discuss your situation with the inviting AE before accepting the invitation.
If you and the AE decide you can objectively evaluate the manuscript:
- Disclose your potential or perceived conflict in the “Comments to Editor” field when submitting your review comments.
- Confirm in your disclosure that your conflict did not influence your review.
2. Evaluating the Manuscript
2.1. Initial Considerations
On first read, consider the novelty of the research question, the quality of the scientific approach, and the contribution made by the findings. If the manuscript is not clear or detailed enough for you to fully evaluate the work, inform the AE before starting your review.
2.2. General Guidelines
As you perform your review, consider how well the manuscript is presented and referenced.
2.3. Introduction
The Introduction should summarize current knowledge as context for the study and conclude with the rationale for the manuscript.
2.4. Methods
The Methods section should present all study details and procedures used to address the objectives outlined in the Introduction.
2.5. Results
The Results section should present all results of the main analysis and a summary of the results of any sensitivity or secondary analyses reported in the Methods section.
2.6. Discussion
The Discussion section should provide a brief overview of the study findings and discuss their implications for the study objectives or hypotheses, concordance or disagreement with existing literature, and future research, as appropriate.
2.7. Supplemental Material
Authors should limit Supplemental Material to details that enhance transparency but are not required to understand the methods or interpret the primary findings.
3. Writing Constructive Reviewer Comments
3.1. Reviewer Questionnaire
When submitting your review, you will be asked to recommend a decision, complete a brief questionnaire, provide confidential comments to the editor, and provide comments to the author.
3.2. What to Include in Comments to the Editor
In the confidential “Comments to Editor” field, provide a summary of your review and your recommendation to the Editor. Include frank statements about the novelty and rigor of the science, and—if not clear from your comments to author—what drove your overall recommendation.
3.3. What to Include in Comments to the Author
Begin your comments to the author with a high-level summary of the manuscript, including the strengths and weaknesses of the study. Follow with a list of major and minor comments and suggestions; include specific examples as appropriate.
4. Reviewer Checklist
The items on this checklist parallel the more detailed guidance provided to reviewers in the above sections. Please take the time to explore these sections prior to using the checklist for convenience.
