Peer Review Policy

Manuscripts are reviewed internally for relevance to the Journal of Asian Health’s focus on the social and medical determinants of health among Asian and Asian American populations. Once suitability is determined, reviews are solicited by expert reviewers in the field relevant to the paper for manuscripts in the categories of research perspectives, original research letters, literature reviews (systematic, scoping, and narrative), and original research articles. Reviews are single-blind in which reviewers are aware of authors’ identities and affiliations so as to avoid conflicts of interest while maintaining reviewer confidentiality. Review policies are based on guidance of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (https://www.icmje.org/) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (https://publicationethics.org/). Once received, the Managing Editor confers with the Editor-in-Chief and conveys review comments with an interim or final disposition to the corresponding author.

REVIEWER GUIDELINES

Peer review provides expert and objective analysis of submitted manuscripts with constructive recommendations for revision. Comments contribute to Journal decisions about interim or final disposition in adherence with the Journal's editorial criteria. Reviews should provide authors with in-depth recommendations necessary to enhance the scientific rigor and comprehensive approach to the subject matter. When recommending rejection of a paper, please explain the major weaknesses of the paper with full and constructive transparency. Confidential comments addressed to the Editor are welcome to better assist with evaluating the overall contribution of a manuscript.

Reviewers should adhere to the following conventions for reviewing articles:

• Reviews should be conducted objectively and free of bias. Upon receipt, reviewers are asked to disclose any personal, professional, or financial conflicts associated with the authors and/or the topic of the manuscript. Reviewers should state all competing interests and decline to review manuscripts with which they believe they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript. Alternates will be sought upon notification.

• Please maintain confidentiality of the content at all times with respect to all materials related to the manuscript; this request pertains to any exchange via email or conversation regarding the content and other materials related to the manuscript. Please refrain from discussing unpublished manuscripts in their entirety with colleagues or use the information in their own work. We ask that reviews be kept in the strictest confidence both during review and after publication.

• Please immediately indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise, or that you were unable to assess fully and request that reviewers address any other specific questions as requested by the editors.

• Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate, as are defamatory/libelous remarks.
• Any reviewer who wishes to transfer a peer review invitation to a colleague must contact the Journal in advance. 

The Journal recommends each review consider the following criteria as appropriate:

• Clarity and context. Is the text clear and accessible? Is the language formal but free from jargon?
• Originality and significance. Is the Introduction clear and rationale fully explained with supporting evidence that is current and comprehensive? Please suggest relevant citations to ensure completeness, as necessary. Does the manuscript have conceptual flaws that would prohibit its publication?
• Please comment on the validity of the approach, soundness of the study design, and clarity in the presentation. Please review all data, including any extended data and supplementary information. Is the methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to reproduce the results?
• Note the validity of the results and whether the scientific analysis is sound and supported by the data presented, reliably interpreted, and results reproducible. Please comment about the appropriateness of statistical tests and additional analyses that might be required as well as accuracy of statistical results and probability values. Note the appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties as well as sound reporting of original data in text, tables, and figures. Please note whether all error bars/levels of significance are defined in the corresponding figure legends.
• Conclusions. Observe whether conclusive assertions are supported by the study’s findings or are comments out of scope. The conclusions should provide context about the study’s relevance to current research and propose future directions.
• Biased or inflammatory material. Does the manuscript contain any language that is inappropriate or potentially libelous?
• Suggested improvements. Please list constructive suggestions that could help strengthen the work in a revision.
• References. Does the manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? Please provide suggestions as necessary to either include relevant research or exclude dated literature.

NOTE. Reviewers should alert the Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Paul Wang, if they wish to make an allegation of publication or research misconduct, e.g., plagiarism or image manipulation, about an article they are reviewing.

Notes on Scientific Data and Methodology

Thorough review of statistical methods is advised. Reviewers should feel free to request additional data sets or information as necessary to support results presented in the manuscript or to remove analyses or scientific conclusions that are not supported by the data presented. Please refrain from requesting extensive follow-up experimentation or confirmation of specific hypotheses or interpretations that fall outside the scope of the study.

Consider the following specific questions related to data and methodology

Experimental rigor and technical data quality

• Are data generated and analyzed in a rigorous and methodologically sound manner?
• Are data supported with technical validation experiments and statistical analyses as needed?
• Are the depth, coverage, size, and/or completeness of data sufficient for the types of applications or research questions outlined by the authors?

Completeness of the description

• Are methods and any data-processing steps described in sufficient detail to allow others to reproduce these steps?
• Do the authors provide all the information needed for others to reproduce this dataset or integrate it with other data?
• Do original data and analyses consistent with relevant minimum information or reporting standards?
• Are the reasons for collecting the data clear and align with rationale?
• Are the limitations of the data clearly stated in discussion of limitations?

Integrity of the data files and repository record

• To the degree that you have viewed the actual data files, did they appear complete, and do they match the descriptions in the data note?
• Have these data files been deposited in the most appropriate available data repository?

Please note: Reviewers may be asked to assess revisions of reviewed papers to ensure that reviewers’ concerns have been adequately addressed.