Peer review
Help shape the science of holistic health
JHHWB depends on the expertise of reviewers worldwide. A typical commitment is one review per 4-week window, and we respect your time at every step.
4wk
Review window
from invitation acceptance
2
Reviewers per article
double-blind
5
Rubric dimensions
scored 1–5, plus recommendation
Peer review model
Double-blind
Both reviewer and author identities are concealed throughout the process, ensuring impartial evaluation based solely on scientific merit.
Two reviewers per article
A minimum of two independent experts assess each research submission. Additional reviewers may be consulted for complex or interdisciplinary work.
COPE-aligned
All peer review follows Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines for reviewer responsibilities and conflicts of interest.
Why review for JHHWB
Recognition
Acknowledgement in the annual Reviewer of the Year list and a signed certificate of service for your academic record.
APC waiver
Active reviewers completing two or more reviews in a calendar year receive a waiver on one JHHWB submission.
Early access
Read accepted manuscripts in your area of expertise before they appear publicly.
Reciprocal network
Contribute quality reviews and receive them in return — peer review is a scholarly gift economy.
Review timeline
| Milestone | Target |
|---|---|
| Respond to invitation | 5 business days |
| Complete the review | 4 weeks from acceptance |
| Revision re-review | 2 weeks from re-submission |
Need more time? Just contact the handling editor — we would rather have a thorough review than a rushed one.
Review rubric
Reviewers evaluate each manuscript across five dimensions, scored 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), and provide an overall recommendation.
Originality
Does the manuscript present new findings, concepts, or perspectives that advance the field?
Scored 1–5
Methodology
Are the study design, methods, and statistical analyses appropriate and rigorously described?
Scored 1–5
Clarity
Is the manuscript well-organised, clearly written, and logically structured?
Scored 1–5
Data integrity
Are the data presented accurately and transparently? Are figures and tables clear?
Scored 1–5
Contribution
How significant is the work for holistic health practice, policy, or future research?
Scored 1–5
Reviewer's Report Templates
Prefer to draft your review offline? Each peer-reviewed article type has its own Word (.docx) reviewer's report template — pre-structured with the same quality-rating scale, recommendation options, and reporting-guideline checks used in the online review form. Editorially handled article types (Editorial, News, Correspondence, and similar) are not peer reviewed and have no report template.
General Article
Word template (.docx)
Review Article
Word template (.docx)
Systematic Review
Word template (.docx)
Research Account
Word template (.docx)
Research Article
Word template (.docx)
Research Communication
Word template (.docx)
Case Report
Word template (.docx)
Hypothesis and Theory
Word template (.docx)
Scientific Correspondence
Word template (.docx)
Opinion / Perspective
Word template (.docx)
Commentary
Word template (.docx)
Ethical standards
- Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript content and reviewer identities.
- Declare any financial, personal, or professional conflicts of interest before accepting.
- Provide an objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessment.
- Do not use unpublished material from manuscripts under review without written consent.
- Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or notify the editor early of delays.
- Do not delegate the review to a colleague, student, or AI assistant without editor approval.
Full details: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Join our reviewer network
Register your expertise today. We will invite you when a manuscript matches your subject area — you can always decline if you are too busy.