For reviewers

Launch preparation · Editorial proposals dated 25 October 2026. Public submissions are closed. Policies and article limits await scientific and publisher ratification.

Proposed peer review process

IDGH proposes external double-anonymised peer review: author and reviewer identities are withheld from one another as far as practicable. Anonymity cannot be guaranteed when preprints, prior collaborations or the study context reveal identity; disclose any recognition or conflict to the editor. Review reports remain confidential unless a different arrangement is explicitly agreed. Original studies and systematic reviews will normally receive two independent reviews. Statistical or specialist review may be added. Case reports and protocols will undergo external review; editorials and correspondence may be assessed by an independent editor, with external review when needed. The published article should identify its review route.

Editorial screening considers scope, methodological adequacy, ethical documentation and reporting. An editor without a relevant conflict selects reviewers for expertise and independence. Reviewer suggestions may be considered but require identity verification. Authors' recommendations are not binding. Editors' own submissions must be managed independently, without their access to confidential deliberations.

Reviewer responsibilities

Accept only within your competence and availability. Declare competing interests, recent collaboration, institutional relationships and personal or financial interests before accepting. Do not contact the authors directly, delegate the review without permission or use unpublished findings. Keep files, identity and discussions confidential after the review ends.

Assess the question, study design, selection, measurement, analysis, uncertainty, ethics, reporting, reproducibility and interpretation. Distinguish essential changes from optional improvements. Make specific, respectful comments supported by evidence. Do not demand citations to your own work without a clear scientific reason. Send suspected misconduct privately to the editor; avoid unsupported accusations in the author facing report.

Proposed targets are seven days to respond to an invitation and 21 days to return a review, subject to agreement; these are internal aims, not promised turnaround times. Request an extension early. Editors make decisions after weighing evidence and reports, rather than counting reviewer votes.

AI and confidentiality

Do not upload manuscripts, figures, participant data, identities or review reports to external AI services without prior journal approval, assured confidentiality and any required author permission. Do not delegate judgement to an AI system. Declare any permitted assistance to the editor and verify the resulting report personally.

After the decision

Revisions may be returned to reviewers. Reports are retained as confidential editorial records under the retention schedule to be approved before launch. Reviewers should disclose errors discovered after completing a review. There are no reviewer appointments or invitations implied by the publication of these guidelines.