Reviewer Guide

Journal

Reviewer Guide APPHA

Applied Health Administration (APPHA)

1. Purpose & Scope

The goal of peer review is to evaluate a manuscript’s originality, scientific rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance to health administration practice and policy. Assess whether the submission advances knowledge and is suitable for publication in APPHA.

2. Confidentiality & Ethical Standards

• Confidentiality: Treat all files/data as confidential. Do not share, quote, or use for personal research.
• Conflicts of Interest: If you have financial/personal/academic conflict or a close collaboration with authors/institutions, decline or disclose immediately.
• Impartiality: Base your review on evidence/methods — not author identity, affiliation, or country.
• Data Protection: Do not upload manuscripts to third-party tools/public AI services. If using local grammar tools, ensure content isn’t retained by the service.
• COPE-aligned: Our processes adhere to best practice guidance consistent with COPE.

3. How to Review in OJS (Step-by-Step)

1. Respond: From the invitation email/OJS dashboard, click Accept or Decline (ideally within 3 days).
2. Access Files: Open the assigned submission; download manuscript & supplementary files.
3. Read Guidance: Review this page and any checklists attached to the review form.
4. Evaluate: Assess using the criteria below; note major/minor issues.
5. Write Comments: Fill structured comments in the review form; you may also upload a marked file (track changes) and summarize key points in text boxes.
6. Recommendation: Select decision (Accept / Minor Rev / Major Rev / Reject), then submit.
7. Re-review (if requested): Focus on whether prior concerns are fully addressed.

4. What to Assess (Criteria)

• Originality & Significance — novelty, contribution to health administration, practice/policy relevance.
• Fit to Scope — alignment with APPHA’s aims and audience.
• Literature & Rationale — clear research gap; current, appropriate references.
• Methods & Ethics — design suitability; sampling; instruments; validity; IRB/ethics approval; consent; trial registration when applicable.
• Analysis — appropriate statistics/qualitative analyses; effect sizes & CIs; assumptions; sensitivity analyses; transparency/reproducibility.
• Results — clarity; coherence with methods; effective tables/figures; no duplication.
• Discussion — accurate interpretation; implications; limitations; generalizability; future directions.
• Transparency — data/code availability statements; funding & conflicts clearly stated.
• Writing Quality — organization, clarity, adherence to journal style (APA 7), correct figure/table captions.

5. Rating Rubric (1 = Poor … 5 = Excellent)

6. Constructive Feedback — Template & Examples

• Brief Summary (2–4 lines): State what the manuscript does and its main contribution.
• Major Issues: e.g., design flaws, missing ethics/IRB, inadequate analysis, unsupported claims, unclear methods.
• Minor Issues: e.g., clarity/organization, figure/table labeling, APA 7 references.
• Confidential to Editor: Use for sensitive concerns (suspected plagiarism, overlapping submissions, undisclosed conflicts).

7. Decision Categories (Meaning)

• Accept: Only minor editorial/formatting tweaks remain.
• Minor Revisions: Limited, specific changes; no major re-analysis.
• Major Revisions: Substantial methodological/analytical/structural changes; may require re-review.
• Reject: Fundamental flaws, out of scope, or insufficient contribution.

8. Timelines & Extensions

Please submit reviews by the invitation deadline (commonly 2–4 weeks). If you need more time, request an extension early so we can manage the editorial schedule.

9. Pre-Submission Checklist

• Scores/rubric items completed and consistent with comments.
• Major/minor issues clearly distinguished with actionable suggestions.
• Confidential note to editor added (if applicable).
• Any annotated file uploaded and key points summarized in text boxes.
• No confidential or identifying information disclosed in blinded fields.

10. Reviewer Recognition

• Certificates of Reviewing available upon request.
• Annual acknowledgement of active reviewers on the journal website (opt-in).
• You may list verified reviews on your CV/professional profiles.

11. Useful Resources

• Reporting guidelines: CONSORT (trials), PRISMA (systematic reviews), STROBE (observational), SQUIRE (QI/implementation).
• Ethics & integrity: COPE guidance and flowcharts.
• Transparency: Encourage effect sizes, CIs, and data/code availability statements where feasible.

12. Contact

Questions or technical issues during review? Email the editorial office:
appha@analysisdata.co.id