The Journal of community systems for health have a single-blinded review policy in which reviewers do know the names of the authors but the names of the reviewers are not revealed to the authors. To ensure transparency and to acknowledge the reviewers work, we disclose the names of all reviewers after publication.

Papers submitted to the Journal of community systems for health and judged to be of interest to our readers are sent to at least two referees. Reviewers should state no competing interests for reviewing. The review process is meant to maintain the high-quality standards of the journal, promote rigorous research within the field, and to offer authors constructive and formative feedback on their submissions.

Manuscripts will be reviewed for the significance, originality, quality and suitability of the method, coherence and clarity of writing. The goal is to review and respond to submissions within three weeks. 

What to consider when evaluating a manuscript for the Journal of Community Systems for Health:

• Does the paper has clear aims and objectives or research questions?
• Does it contribute to existing knowledge?
• Is it appropriately grounded in relevant literature with sufficient references?
• Does the methodology used for research or evaluation is justified, clear, transparent and appropriate?
• Are ethical considerations and approval considered?
• Does the paper demonstrate a clear flow and logical argument?
• Doe is it link appropriately to a discussion and conclusions?

Remember the importance of objectivity, collaboration, and constructive feedback. It is essential to respect the manuscript's scope and focus on what it aims to achieve and avoid recommending significant scope expansion. The emphasis should be on the quality of the research, rather than the author, and small copy-editing errors should not be flagged. Constructive feedback should be provided in a polite and impersonal tone, with reasonable recommendations for improvement. Field-specific knowledge should be utilized when giving feedback. It is essential to show professional courtesy and provide positive feedback when warranted.

What to avoid when reviewing a manuscript:

Reviewers should avoid being vague or too brief, and instead provide precise and detailed feedback. They should not leave out key points in their initial report and should conclude with a clear recommendation for the handling editor. Reviewers should also avoid dropping out of the peer review process and should submit their responses on time. If they need an extension or need to withdraw, they should directly contact the ´handling editor. It's important to consider the authors' feelings and provide feedback in a timely and efficient manner.

To facilitate rapid publication, reviewers are given 3 weeks to complete their reviews and authors are given 4 weeks for submitting a revised version of their manuscript and their rebuttal letter. The revised version and the rebuttal letter are then sent to the reviewers who can recommend endorsing or rejecting the manuscript or ask for another round of revision.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Peer Review

Reviewer feedback must reflect the independent judgment of reviewers. AI tools cannot act as reviewers or make editorial decisions.

If AI tools are used in the peer review process (for example, to check data, assist with translation, or improve language) this use must be fully disclosed to authors in the review form.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts to online platforms, databases, generative AI tools, or any other external services.

For questions or concerns regarding AI tool use in peer review, please contact the journal office at jcsh.epigh@umu.se