Editorial Policy
EDITORIAL POLICY
Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the journal scope.
The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over all editorial decisions.
The journal adheres to ICMJE, COPE, and EQUATOR Network standards.
- Mission Statement:
The mission of The Nigerian Health Journal is to advance knowledge and understanding in the field of health by publishing high-quality, evidence-based research, reviews, and articles. The journal aims to contribute to the improvement of healthcare outcomes, public health, and medical practice.
- Editorial Structure
The editorial structure comprises the editorial consultants (advisers), editorial board, editor-in-chief, deputy (managing) editor, section editor, reviewers, editorial assistants
Editorial Consultants (Adviser)
- Serve in advisory roles
- Meeting annually with the editorial board
Editorial Board
- Comprises editor in chief, deputy editors and section editors
- Meet quarterly before/after release of new series
- Meeting in early March, June, September, and December
Editor in Chief
- Leads periodical reviews of the editorial corporate strategies and scope of the journal
- Member of the Editorial Board
- Chairs the quarterly editorial board meetings
- Prepares annual reports
- Receives all manuscripts
- Makes initial judgement on suitability and reporting style
- Ensures personal identifiers are removed from articles
- Assigns manuscripts to Deputy (Managing Editor) and Section Editors
- Approves final version
- Refer reviewed articles to the copy editor
- Communicates with the journal publisher
- Plan capacity building for the editorial team
Deputy Editor, Innovation & Advancement
- Member of the Editorial Board
- Coordinates registration, abstraction and indexing of the journal
- Supports quality improvement of the journal
- Assist the Editor-in-Chief in efforts at enhancing the indexing, abstracting and ranking of the journal
- Undertakes other activities assigned by the Editor-in-Chief from time to time
Deputy Editor (Editorial Services & Managing Editor)
- Member of the Editorial Board
- Evaluates submissions from authors to decide what to publish
- Conducts plagiarism checks on manuscripts recommended for publication by section editors
- Ensuring timeliness of reviews and publication of articles
- Verify facts and references cited in materials for publication
- Supervises activities of section editors
- Communicates with authors
- Undertakes other activities assigned by the Editor-in-Chief from time to time
Deputy Editor (Marketing & Circulation)
- Member of the Editorial Board
- Plan and implement strategies for improving journal subscription
- Plan and implement strategies for improving article submission
- Plan and implements strategies to enhance the visibility, availability and readership of articles published in the journal
- Set up and manage the social media handles (WhatsApp’s, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Snap Chat, YouTube) of the journal
- Undertakes other activities assigned by the Editor-in-Chief from time to time
Section Editor - a Section Editor (or Associate Editor)
- Member of the Editorial Board
- Manages the progression of articles from submission to publication
- Assigns manuscripts to reviewers with appropriate competencies to evaluate them
- Communicating with peer reviewers regarding article reviews and revisions
- Monitor quality of reviews by reviewers and recommend replacement of reviewers whose reviews are inadequate or not timely
- Identify subject experts that would serve as reviewers
- Verify facts and references cited in materials for publication
- Makes recommendation on article after weighing comments of the reviewers
- Supports marketing and quality improvement of the journal
Copy Editor
- Proofread content and correct spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors
- Assess and make recommendations on readability, style, and congruence with editorial policy
- Format submissions to journal requirements
- Allocate space for text, tables, figures, photos and illustrations that make the article.
- Arrange page layouts of articles
Reviewer
- Engages with the section editors and authors particularly in assisting with peer review
- Provide regular peer review upon invitation to specific manuscripts
- Follow the TNHJ Peer Review Guidelines
- Submit peer-reviews by the assigned deadline
- Recommend other peer reviewers, especially when you must decline the invitation to review a specific manuscript
- Offer recommendations on improving the journal’s activities
Benefits of reviewing for the Journal
- Enhance the credentials of the reviewer
- Build the professional and academic networks of the reviewer
- Reviewers receive annual letter of appreciation from the journal (only for those who had reviewed at least one manuscript during the year)
- Receive recognition as a leader in the professional and academic community (TNHJ Reviewers will have their names, titles and affiliations listed on the journal website)
- Reviewers are involved in the editorial board meeting (invitation will be provided) and capacity building activities organised by the Journal.
- Peer Review Process:
TNHJ ensures an objective and quick peer review process, with a targeted maximum paper turnaround time of three weeks. As shown in Figure 1, all manuscripts are subjected to an internal Editorial review process is on conformity with the scope of the journal and guidelines for submitted manuscripts. Articles are then subjected to a double-blind review by an odd number of reviewers, usually three. The double-blind review process ensures that the reviewers and authors are unaware of each other’s identity. The journal’s editorial advisers and peer reviewers are provided with a structured peer review assessment form aimed at achieving an objective review. Academics interested in becoming editorial advisers and peer reviewers should send their expression of intent with a brief profile by email to tnhjph@gmail.com
- Selection of Reviewers:
Reviewers will be selected based on their expertise in the relevant health disciplines to ensure rigorous evaluation of submitted manuscripts.
- Double-Blind Review:
The journal employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure unbiased evaluation of manuscripts.
vi. Clinical Trial & Systematic Review Registration:
For clinical trials and systematic reviews, authors are required to register their trials in recognized public registries and provide the registration details in the manuscript.
- Review Timelines:
Manuscripts will be processed and reviewed in a timely manner, with a commitment to efficient decision-making. The timelines for the various stages of processing of manuscripts for publication are shown below.
Acknowledgement à 72 hours
Reviews à 12 weeks
Fast track review à 4 weeks
Post-review activities to publication à 4 weeks
- Peer Reviewer Guidelines (2024)
- Overview of the Peer Review Process
The Nigerian Health Journal (TNHJ) operates a rigorous, objective, and transparent peer review system designed to uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity and scholarly excellence.
All manuscripts submitted to TNHJ undergo a structured multi-stage evaluation process aimed at ensuring:
o Scientific validity
o Methodological soundness
o Ethical compliance
o Relevance to the journal’s scope
o Originality and contribution to knowledge
TNHJ adopts a double-blind peer review model, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This ensures impartiality, minimizes bias, and promotes objective evaluation.
Each article is sent to 3 reviewers who have competence on the subject to be reviewed. Double blind review where both authors and reviewers keep their anonymity is adopted by the Journal. Reviewers are sent an email request for their review of the article and before they accept the review request, they should make sure their experience fits with the topic of the article for review. Reviews are due 28 days from the initial acceptance of the review assignment except in cases of FastTrack reviews. Reviewers who need an extension or wish to decline initial acceptance should contact the section editor immediately so the manuscript can be reassigned to other reviewers. Reviewers are encouraged to state any competing interest in the conduct of specific reviews.
Peer reviewers are expected to offer both supportive and constructive feedback to strengthen the manuscript. They should give specific constructive feedback and honest commendation where needed. They can also provide annotations on the blind copy of the manuscript which can direct areas author(s) should deal with.
During submission of reviewed manuscripts, reviewers are expected to complete a substantive reviewer’s report using the template provided. They are also expected to give clear recommendations on the article as provided in the submission portion of the website.
- Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an internal editorial assessment before being sent for external peer review.
This stage includes evaluation of:
Conformity with the journal’s scope
Compliance with submission guidelines
Completeness of required documentation
Ethical approval (where applicable)
Plagiarism screening
Formatting and structure
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s minimum requirements may be returned to authors for correction or declined without external review.
- External Double-Blind Peer Review
After passing editorial screening, manuscripts are assigned to an odd number of reviewers, typically three (3), with recognized competence in the subject area.
- Key Features of the Review Model:
o Double-blind review (author and reviewer identities concealed)
o Minimum of three independent reviewers
o Structured peer review assessment template
o Section Editor oversight
o The use of an odd number of reviewers helps ensure balanced decision-making and reduces the likelihood of tie recommendations.
o Reviewers are selected based on:
o Subject-matter expertise
o Academic qualifications
o Publication history
o Absence of conflicts of interest
- Reviewer Invitation and Acceptance
Prospective reviewers receive a formal email invitation outlining:
o Title of the manuscript
o Abstract (or summary)
o Review timeline
o Conflict of interest declaration request
Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers are expected to:
o Confirm that the manuscript aligns with their expertise
o Declare any competing interests
o Confirm availability to complete the review within the stipulated timeframe
If a reviewer is unable to complete the review, they are expected to notify the Section Editor immediately to allow reassignment.
Academics interested in serving as Editorial Advisers or Peer Reviewers may submit an expression of interest with a brief professional profile to: editor@tnhjph.org
- Review Timelines
o TNHJ is committed to an efficient manuscript processing system. However, quality review remains the priority.
o Processing Timeline from Submission
o Acknowledgement of submission: Within 72 hours
o Standard Review Period: Up to 12 weeks
o Fast-Track Review: 4 weeks
o Post-Review Activities to Publication: Approximately 4 weeks
While the journal strives for timely decisions, delays may occur due to reviewer availability or the need for additional evaluations.
- Reviewer Responsibilities
Peer reviewers play a critical role in safeguarding the scientific credibility of the journal. Reviewers are expected to:
- Provide objective and constructive feedback, offer clear, evidence-based critique, highlight strengths of the manuscript, identify weaknesses and areas for improvement, and provide specific suggestions for revision. Reviews should be professional, respectful, and free from personal criticism.
- Use the Structured Reviewer Template
Reviewers must complete the official TNHJ structured assessment form provided during submission of their report. This includes evaluation of:
o Originality
o Relevance to scope
o Methodological rigor
o Ethical compliance
o Data analysis
o Clarity of presentation
o Referencing accuracy
Reviewers are required to provide a clear recommendation, typically selecting one of the following:
o Accept
o Minor Revision
o Major Revision
o Reject
- Maintain Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not:
o Share manuscript content
o Use unpublished data for personal benefit
o Discuss the manuscript with unauthorized persons
- Declare Competing Interests
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may influence objectivity, including:
o Financial relationships
o Institutional affiliations
o Collaborative relationships with authors
o Personal or academic rivalry
- Decision-Making Process
After receiving reviewer reports, the Section Editor evaluates:
o Reviewer recommendations
o Consistency of feedback
o Quality of comments
o Relevance of criticisms
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision.
In cases of conflicting recommendations, additional reviewers may be appointed.
Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments along with the editorial decision.
- Fast-Track Review
TNHJ offers a Fast-Track Review option for time-sensitive manuscripts.
Fast-track processing:
o Follows the same double-blind standards
o Maintains full ethical and scientific rigor
o Has an accelerated timeline of approximately 4 weeks
o Fast-track status does not guarantee acceptance.
- Post-Review and Revision Process
When revisions are requested:
o Authors must submit a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment
o Revised manuscripts may be returned to original reviewers
o Further rounds of revision may occur where necessary
Acceptance is granted only when the manuscript satisfies editorial and scientific standards.
- Ethical Oversight in Peer Review
TNHJ ensures that the peer review process adheres to:
o International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations
o Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) core practices
o Fairness and non-discrimination principles
Allegations of reviewer misconduct or bias will be investigated confidentially by the editorial office.
- Commitment to Integrity and Transparency
TNHJ’s peer review system is designed to:
o Protect academic independence
o Promote evidence-based evaluation
o Maintain publication integrity
o Ensure transparency in editorial decision-making
The journal remains committed to strengthening and continuously improving its peer review processes in alignment with international publishing best practices.