Peer Review

The Journal of Health Monitoring (JoHM) is published by the Robert Koch Institute as part of the Federal Health Reporting in Germany. The JoHM publishes predominantly invited articles. Manuscripts that were not invited may be published in certain circumstances if the topic has been agreed upon with the editors prior to submission. Unsolicited manuscripts will not be accepted for publication.

The JoHM follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, which were published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). Authors, reviewers and the JoHM’s editorial staff are expected to adhere to the ethical guidelines outlined in the Ethical Policy and Malpractice Statement of the Journal of Health Monitoring. Everyone involved in the review process should be aware of potential conflicts of interest while exercising their role.

Unbiased, independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all scholarly work, and this includes scientific research; as such, peer review is an important extension of the scientific process. The JoHM forwards submitted manuscripts to independent experts in the respective field for review (with the exception of Editorials and Abstracts). In most cases, external reviewers are employed for this purpose; employees of the Robert Koch Institute only adopt this role in selected cases. Members of the editorial staff are not permitted to act as reviewers. Decisions to accept or reject an article will only be made once the peer review process has been completed.

First, the editors check and decide whether a manuscript submitted meets the objectives of the Journal and whether the content of the contributions maintains the neutral position of the Robert Koch Institute as a federal authority. If members of the JoHM’s editorial staff provide a manuscript, they will not be involved in this decision, and other editors will assume responsibility for all editorial tasks related to the contribution.

If the manuscript is accepted for further processing, the contribution will undergo a peer review for critical evaluation and quality control. The JoHM uses a double-anonymous peer review procedure, which means that the authors and the reviewers remain mutually anonymous during the process.

On submission of a manuscript, authors are asked to name at least three reviewers with expertise in the respective field of research. The editors select two reviewers for each article. The editors can take into account the authors’ suggestions but are not bound by them. Editors will also make clear that reviewers should treat the manuscripts, associated material, and the information they contain as strictly confidential. Reviewers should recuse themselves from the peer review process if conflicts of interest exist.

The anonymised manuscript is evaluated by the reviewers using a partially standardised questionnaire. In addition to assessing the contribution’s relevance to public health, the following aspects are also taken into account: scientific quality (consideration of the latest scientific research, plausibility of argumentation, application of suitable empirical methods and use of relevant literature) as well as formal aspects (language, presentation of results). Finally, the reviewers provide a recommendation to either accept (if necessary, subject to change) or reject the manuscript. In cases where changes are recommended, reviewers may request the resubmission of the revised manuscript.

Against the background of the peer review, the editors decide whether to accept the article for publication or reject the article.

Authors have the right to appeal against editorial decisions. Appeals should be addressed in writing to the editors of the JoHM at healthmonitoring@rki.de. If the appeal concerns an opinion provided as part of the peer review process, any exchange between authors and reviewers will be mediated by the editors. If agreement cannot be reached, the editors can commission an arbitration report. An assessment by an arbitrator can also be engaged if reviewers provide differing recommendations (one recommends acceptance; the other recommends rejection). Editorial decisions after an appeal procedure are final.

to the top