Skip to main content
Menu
Language
Appearance
Aims & Scope

Aims and Scope

About the Masthead·Institutional·Remit·Peer-reviewed in spirit · Educational

What the International Health Journal sets out to do, who it is for, and the honest boundaries of its educational remit — reviewing the equipment and methods of health delivery in low-resource settings.

Scope at a glanceBy which we judge field gear
01Criterion
4
Standing desks — cold chain, field diagnostics, outbreak response, WASH
Coverage
02Criterion
Field
Equipment judged on field resilience, not lab-bench ideals
Test standard
03Criterion
Educational
Explainers and reviews — never clinical advice
Remit
04Criterion
Open
Open-access, independent and cited
Publishing model
Standards of the desk
ArticleField Series
Our aim

What the journal sets out to do

The International Health Journal exists to give field teams an honest, independent reading of the equipment and methods used to deliver health in low-resource settings. Our aim is narrow on purpose: we review the practical tools and practice of delivery — refrigeration, diagnostics, response logistics, water and sanitation — because that is where good intentions most often founder.

We aim to be measured, cited and useful. Every conclusion is anchored to evidence; every claim of uncertainty is stated rather than hidden; and every piece is written for someone who will actually have to choose, deploy or maintain the thing we are reviewing.

End of section
Plate II
Fig. — field plate
Figure. Engraved reference plate — evaluating equipment on field resilience, not lab-bench ideals.
Out of scope

What we deliberately leave to others

A clear scope is defined as much by what it excludes. The journal does not provide clinical or treatment advice, does not rank vendors for commercial purposes, and does not review consumer health products or high-resource hospital technology that lies outside our field-delivery remit.

We also avoid territory better served by specialist scientific journals: original laboratory research, drug efficacy trials and policy advocacy. Where those fields touch our work, we cite them and point readers onward, but we keep our own focus on the practical equipment and methods of delivery. Our editorial standards describe how we hold that line.

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

Who we write for

Our primary readers are the people who deliver health under constraint: programme managers, field logisticians, procurement officers, clinicians and public-health workers in low-resource settings. We also serve researchers, donors and ministries needing an independent reading of field equipment.

Because our readers are practitioners, we write plainly and keep the deployment question in view: will this hold up where it has to? Our commitment to equity shapes whose constraints we keep central — the settings most often overlooked by commercial review.

How a topic enters the journal

What we choose to review, and why

Coverage is not random. A topic earns a place in the journal by meeting a consistent set of tests.

  1. 01Step

    Maps to a desk

    The subject must sit clearly within one of our four standing desks and within our field-delivery remit.

  2. 02Step

    Affects many

    We prioritise equipment and methods whose performance affects large numbers of people in low-resource settings.

  3. 03Step

    Independent review is scarce

    We favour areas where honest, non-commercial review is hard to find and the evidence is contested.

  4. 04Step

    Evidence exists to weigh

    There must be enough published and field evidence to support a measured conclusion rather than speculation.

Method of review
ArticleField Series
Our standard of proof

Field resilience over lab-bench ideals

The defining test of this journal is field resilience. A piece of equipment may perform beautifully on a laboratory bench and fail completely in a clinic with intermittent power, ambient heat, dust and untrained handling. We judge equipment on how it behaves in the conditions where it will actually be used.

That means we weigh manufacturer claims sceptically, look for independent field-trial data, and state clearly when the evidence is thin. It also means we are honest about our own limits: we are a review desk, not a testing laboratory, and we cite the field studies we rely on rather than presenting our own bench results we do not have. The full method is set out in our peer-review policy and our editorial standards.

End of section
Correspondence

Queries to the desk

05 entries on file
Q1.Will the journal tell me which exact product to buy?

We give you the evidence and the field considerations to make an informed choice — but we are educational, not a procurement service, and we never accept payment to recommend a product. Final decisions sit with you and your programme.

Q2.Do you cover treatment protocols or clinical guidelines?

No. Clinical guidance is outside our scope and is better served by specialist bodies. We focus strictly on the equipment and methods of delivery. See our about page for the full remit.

Q3.Why only four desks?

Because a narrow scope reviewed well is more useful than broad coverage reviewed poorly. The four desks cover the systems that fail first in low-resource delivery; if we widen scope, we will document the change openly.

Q4.Can the scope change over time?

Yes, deliberately and transparently. Our history records how the remit has been refined, and any future change is decided through our governance process.

Q5.How do I suggest a topic within scope?

We welcome suggestions from people working in the field. See our contributor guidelines or write to the editorial desk.

From the editorial desk

Within our scope, reviewed without compromise

Explore the four desks, read the editorial standards behind every piece, or get to know the journal as a whole.