Skip to main content
The Journal of Global HealthInternational Health JournalEvidence for health where it's hardest to deliver
Vol.
XXIV
No.
04
Year
2026
Menu

Quick Links

ArticlesCommunity ForumContact
Language
Appearance
International Health Journal

Evidence for health where it's hardest to deliver

Global Health Equipment Review·Field Series·Evidence Desk·Peer-reviewed in spirit · Educational

A citation-minded global-health desk reviewing the equipment, methods and field practice that keep care running in low-resource settings. We read the literature, then we read the field — and we write for the people who carry the load.

Read the latest articlesBrowse field guides
From the review desk

Explore by topic

Browse the full article library by subject.

  1. 01

    Field Diagnostics

    Rapid diagnostic tests for malaria, HIV, and dengue, portable microscopes, and point-of-care analyzers evaluated for accuracy, ruggedness, and use by field researchers in low-resource settings.

    Browse
  2. 02

    News

    Latest news updates.

    Browse
  3. 03

    Articles

    Long-form pieces and editorial coverage.

    Browse
  4. 04

    Press Releases

    Official announcements from International Health Journal.

    Browse
  5. 05

    Resources

    Guides, reference materials, downloadables.

    Browse
Review criteriaBy which we judge field gear
01Criterion
4
Standing review desks — cold chain, field diagnostics, outbreak response, WASH infrastructure
Editorial structure
02Criterion
100%
Educational, non-commercial — no advertiser influence over what we cover or conclude
Independence policy
03Criterion
2-stage
Every review reads the published evidence, then tests it against field reality
Review method
04Criterion
Open
Open-access by default — corrections and retractions published openly
Access policy
Standards of the desk
From the review desk

Four desks, one discipline

The journal is organised around the systems that fail first when health has to reach the hardest places. Each desk pairs the published literature with field testing and writes plainly for the people who deploy the gear.

  1. 01
    Cold Chain

    Keeping vaccines and biologics viable from depot to arm

    Solar refrigeration, passive cold boxes, temperature monitoring and last-mile logistics — reviewed on field resilience, not lab-bench ideals.

    Visit the desk
  2. 02
    Field Diagnostics

    Rapid, point-of-care testing without a laboratory

    Lateral-flow assays, portable analysers and sample handling in heat, dust and intermittent power — what holds up where it's needed.

    Visit the desk
  3. 03
    Outbreak Response

    Surveillance, isolation and the logistics of containment

    Case detection, contact tracing tools, PPE and the field equipment that determines whether a response moves fast enough.

    Visit the desk
  4. 04
    WASH Infrastructure

    Water, sanitation and hygiene as the foundation of care

    Point-of-use treatment, latrine systems and hand-hygiene infrastructure — the unglamorous backbone that prevents far more than it treats.

    Visit the desk
  5. 05
    Field Guides

    Practical guides for deployment and procurement

    Step-by-step field guides written for programme managers, logisticians and clinicians choosing and maintaining equipment.

    Read the guides
  6. 06
    Topics

    Cross-cutting subjects across every desk

    Browse by subject — surveillance, immunization, point-of-care, cold-chain logistics, vector control and more.

    Browse topics
Plate II
Fig. — field plate
Figure. Engraved reference plate — evaluating equipment on field resilience, not lab-bench ideals.
Editorial independence

We answer to the evidence, not to a vendor

The journal carries no advertising that shapes coverage and accepts no payment to feature a product. What we review, and what we conclude, is decided by the editorial desk on the strength of the evidence alone.

That independence is the whole point. Field teams choosing equipment in a low-resource setting are spending scarce budget on decisions that affect lives. They deserve a review that has no stake in the outcome — only in getting it right. Our editorial standards and publication ethics set out exactly how we hold that line.

Read our editorial standards
Our field-equipment review method

How a review reaches the page

Every piece in the journal moves through the same disciplined sequence. The method is deliberately conservative — we would rather publish slowly and be right than quickly and mislead a field team.

  1. 01Step

    Read the evidence

    We start with the published literature, manufacturer data and field-trial reports, cataloguing what is actually known and what is merely claimed.

  2. 02Step

    Test against the field

    Claims are checked against real deployment conditions — heat, dust, humidity, intermittent power and untrained handling — not idealised lab settings.

  3. 03Step

    Review and challenge

    A second reader on the desk challenges the conclusions, flags weak evidence and ensures the framing is honest about uncertainty.

  4. 04Step

    Publish and correct

    We publish open-access, cite our sources, and openly post any correction or retraction the moment new evidence warrants it.

Method of review
Plate II
Fig. — field plate
Figure. Engraved reference plate — evaluating equipment on field resilience, not lab-bench ideals.
Who we write for

Written for the people who carry the load

Our readers are programme managers, field logisticians, procurement officers, clinicians and public-health workers operating where the cold chain is fragile, the laboratory is hours away and the budget is finite.

So we write plainly. We avoid jargon where plain language will do, we state our uncertainty, and we keep the practical question in view: will this hold up where it has to? The journal's aims and scope describe the readership and remit in full.

Read our aims and scope
ArticleField Series
About the journal

A measured desk for a hard problem

Health systems in low-resource settings do not fail for lack of good intentions. They fail at the joints — the refrigerator that loses its charge, the test that degrades in the heat, the water point that breaks and is never repaired. The International Health Journal exists to look hard at those joints.

We are an educational publication, not a commercial one, and not a substitute for medical advice. Our remit is the equipment, methods and field practice of delivering health where delivery is hardest. We organise our work into four standing desks — cold chain, field diagnostics, outbreak response and WASH infrastructure — and we hold every piece to the same standard of evidence.

If you are new here, the About the Journal section explains our structure, our editorial board, our governance and the peer-review policy that underpins what we publish. The articles and field guides are the best place to see the work itself.

End of section
Correspondence

Queries to the desk

06 entries on file
Q1.Is the International Health Journal a peer-reviewed academic journal?

We are an editorial review desk, peer-reviewed in spirit: every piece is read, challenged and corrected by a second reader before publication. We are honest about that framing — we do not claim a formal impact factor, ISSN or indexing we have not earned. Our peer-review policy sets out exactly how review works here.

Q2.Do you accept advertising or sponsorship from equipment manufacturers?

No payment ever shapes our coverage or conclusions. The journal is educational and non-commercial; we review equipment on the evidence alone. See our publication ethics for the full conflict-of-interest position.

Q3.Is anything you publish medical advice?

No. The journal is educational. Our reviews and guides inform procurement and deployment decisions, but they are not clinical guidance and should never replace qualified medical or public-health advice for a specific situation.

Q4.How do you choose what to review?

Coverage is driven by where health systems fail first in low-resource settings, mapped to our four desks. We prioritise equipment and methods that affect many people, where independent review is scarce and the evidence is contested.

Q5.Can I contribute or suggest a topic?

Yes. We welcome field reports, topic suggestions and corrections from people working in the field. See our contributor guidelines or write to the editorial desk via our contact page.

Q6.What happens if you get something wrong?

We publish corrections and retractions openly and promptly. Our corrections and retractions policy explains how we handle errors and how readers can flag them.

From the editorial desk

Read the evidence. Then read the field.

Start with the latest articles and field guides, or get to know the desk behind them. Educational explainers only — measured, cited and independent.

Read the latest articles