Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Health Systems approach calls for a multi-dimensional analysis of health improvement in societies and is holistic unlike a segmented approach which discretely examines factors in isolation. Such a multi-dimensional analysis is a challenging task and requires an interdisciplinary competence. The Journal of Health Systems will strive to develop and facilitate such a competence and will promote critical scholarship in this area

International and national scholarship with respect to health systems research recognizes new trends which are emerging in different societies and accepts contextual issues predominating analysis of health improvement.

The way health systems and services are financed, designed, and delivered, the interaction between health services and the people occur in a social context and this contextual analysis of health systems requires multi-disciplinary inputs which can lead to a  holistic body of knowledge on health systems . The Journal of Health Systems will particularly welcome contributions which can enhance this holistic understanding of health and health services in societies and which can enrich public health both in developing and developed contexts.

 

Section Policies

Research Article

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Analysis

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Article

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Research Methods

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Editorial

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Blog

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Letter/Rapid Response

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Commentary

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Conference

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Brief Communication

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Perspective

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

JHS follows a closed peer review policy, in which the authors and reviewers are not revealed to each others. All submitted manuscripts are screened for overall standards compliance before being forwarded to at least two peer reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision on acceptance or rejection of a manuscript.

Review Guidelines

Peer reviewers should always consider unpublished manuscripts send to them as confidential documents and should not discuss the matter even with colleagues. If you think that a colleague would be a more suitable reviewer for a particular manuscript, please let the editor know.

The Editor who has approached you may not know your work intimately, and may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Only accept an invitation if your area of expertise corresponds to the article in question.

Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate you from reviewing an article, but full disclosure to the editor will allow them to make an informed decision. For example; if you work in the same department or institute as one of the authors; if you have worked on a paper previously with an author; or you have a professional or financial connection to the article. These should all be declared when responding to the editor’s invitation for review.

General guidelines

Even though we provide article specific appraisal forms for reviewers to complete, detailed answering of the following questions will make a good review. Please give detailed and constructive comments that will both help the editors to make a decision and the authors to improve the article.

  1. Is the article relevant from a current medical knowledge point of view?
  2. Does the article add new knowledge to the field of medicine? If not does it add context or relevance to existing medical knowledge? Please describe how.
  3. Does the article read well and make sense? Does it have a clear message?
  4. Does the work appear to be original or does it appear like a copy of some existing literature. Provide relevant references.
  5. Is/are the research question(s)/objective(s) clearly defined and adequately answered?
  6. Is the design of the study appropriate and adequate to answer the research question(s)?
  7. Are the study subjects adequately described, their conditions defined, inclusion and exclusion criteria described?
  8. Was the study ethical, irrespective of ethics committee/IRB clearance?
  9. Is the sample size adequate? Is the sampling method relevant? Is the sample representative of the population which the study seeks to address?
  10. Are the methods adequately described? Is the main outcome measure clearly defined? Are the statistics adequate/appropriate?
  11. Do the results answer the research question/objectives? Are the results credible and well-presented using appropriate figures and tables?
  12. Are the results discussed in the light of relevant existing evidence?
  13. Do the interpretations and conclusions pertain to the objectives and are derived from the results?
  14. Are the references relevant and presented in the format recommended by the journal (Vancouver style)?
  15. Is the abstract and keywords in agreement with the full text of the study?
  16. Are only accepted abbreviations used in the article and are they adequately expanded?

 

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism is a serious offence. It is not just professional misconduct, but may also bear legal implications in the lines of copyright violations and intellectual property theft. Though commonly an act of commission, plagiarism often results from authors inadvertently copying content without being aware of applicable guidelines. The following noteworthy tips, published in Perspectives in Clinical Research can be made use of when submitting articles to peer reviewed medical journals. We also recommend reading the entire article to gain thorough understanding of the issue of Plagiarism in Medical Publishing.

COMMON TIPS FOR AVOIDING PLAGIARISM*

  • Ethical medical writers must always acknowledge the original source of the idea, text, or illustration.
  • They must remember to enclose within quotation marks, all the text that has been copied verbatim from another source.
  • When paraphrasing, they must read the text, understand completely, and then use only their own words.
  • Even when explaining somebody else’s ideas in their own words, it is important that they properly acknowledge the original source.
  • When not sure if the idea/fact they wish to include is common knowledge, a medical writer must cite references.
  • They must cite references accurately. The writer must read the instructions to authors to know what style they need to use. Biomedical journals commonly use the Vancouver style. Some textbook publishers prefer the Harvard referencing style. Insufficient and inaccurate acknowledgement can also amount to plagiarism.
  • A medical writer should avoid writing multiple separate articles if he can present a large complex study in a cohesive manner in a single article.
  • Along with the manuscript, he should submit a cover letter to the editor, clearly stating any instances of overlapping from previous publications and asking for advice.
  • Last, but not the least, if he feels he has unintentionally used somebody else’s ideas or text without appropriate referencing, he needs to write to the editor of the journal for advice. Confession is always better than to be caught stealing.”

*Das N, Panjabi M. Plagiarism: Why is it such a big issue for medical writers? Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2(2):67–71.