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
Editorial Policy

Contributor Guidelines

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

How practitioners and reviewers work with International Health: the field evidence we value, the citation and evidence standards we hold, the firm rule against named-product endorsement, the conflicts you must declare, and the house style. This is guidance for contributors and reviewers — not a manuscript-submission portal, which we do not operate.

Read our editorial standardsContact the editors
Plate II
Fig. — field plate
Figure. Engraved reference plate — evaluating equipment on field resilience, not lab-bench ideals.
What we are asking for

Field evidence, not finished articles

The most valuable thing you can bring this desk is not a polished write-up — it is documented field evidence. A logged equipment failure, a deployment outcome, a program evaluation that confirms or contradicts a catalogue claim: these are the raw material our assessments are built from, and they are precisely what the catalogues cannot give our readers.

So these guidelines are framed around contributing evidence and review, not submitting a manuscript. We are not a primary-research journal and we do not run a paper-submission system. If you have field data, a methodological challenge to one of our verdicts, or the willingness to review an assessment in your area of expertise, this page tells you how that works and the standard it has to meet.

From the review desk

The standards every contribution has to meet

These apply equally to a field-evidence contributor and to a reviewer appraising an assessment.

  1. 01

    Evidence with a setting

    Every contribution arrives with its context — where, when, what equipment, what conditions, what failed or held. Evidence without a deployment setting cannot be graded for field-suitability, so context is the first thing we ask for and the first thing we check.

  2. 02

    Cite the source, characterise the weight

    Claims are tied to their source — a specification, a standard, a study, a logged field report — and characterised for credibility. A documented program evaluation carries differently from a single undated anecdote, and we label thin evidence as provisional rather than dressing it as certainty.

  3. 03

    No named-product endorsement

    We do not publish, and will not accept, content that endorses a named product as a sales recommendation. A verdict grades a device against the rubric and states its limits; it never functions as a promotional placement. This is non-negotiable, for contributors and reviewers alike.

  4. 04

    Declare conflicts up front

    Any financial, design, distribution, funding, or professional relationship with a device, its maker, or a direct competitor must be declared before you contribute or review. A disqualifying interest means exclusion; a perceivable one is disclosed on the assessment.

Plate II
Fig. — field plate
Figure. Engraved reference plate — evaluating equipment on field resilience, not lab-bench ideals.
The endorsement rule, in plain terms

Why we hold the line against named-product endorsement

It would be easy, and commercially tempting, to turn a favourable verdict into a recommendation to buy a specific named product. We do not, and we ask contributors and reviewers not to write as if we might. The distinction is the whole basis of the platform's credibility: we grade equipment against a published rubric and disclose the reasoning; we do not endorse a product as a purchase the way a sales channel would.

In practice that means a contribution should describe what a device did or failed to do in the field, against the conditions it faced — not assert that readers should buy it. Superlatives, sponsored-style language, and "best-in-class" framing are edited out. The independence firewall behind this is set out in our editorial standards, and the conduct expectations in our publication-ethics statement.

How conflicts are governed
Our field-equipment review method

How to work with the desk

Whether you are bringing evidence or reviewing an assessment, the path is the same shape.

  1. 01Step

    Reach out with the specifics

    Contact the editors describing the field evidence you hold, or the category you can review, and your relationship — if any — to the equipment involved. The more concrete the setting and the source, the faster we can assess it.

  2. 02Step

    Declare any interest first

    Before anything else, state any conflict of interest. This is not a formality; it determines whether you can contribute to or review a given assessment at all, and getting it on the table early saves work for everyone.

  3. 03Step

    Submit evidence with its context and citations

    Provide the evidence dated, sourced, and set in its deployment context, with citations to any specification, standard, or study you rely on. Characterise how strong you believe it is rather than overstating it.

  4. 04Step

    Work through review and correction

    Your contribution is weighed under the same rubric as any other source and, where it informs a verdict, runs through our peer-review process. Every assessment it touches is dated and remains open to later correction as the evidence evolves.

Method of review
Review criteriaBy which we judge field gear
01Criterion
1
Standard for contributors and reviewers alike
02Criterion
0
Named-product endorsements accepted, ever
03Criterion
100%
Conflicts of interest declared before contributing
04Criterion
0
Submission, processing, or reviewer fees
Standards of the desk
Plate II
Fig. — field plate
Figure. Engraved reference plate — evaluating equipment on field resilience, not lab-bench ideals.
House style

The register we write in

Our voice is measured, citation-minded, and quietly authoritative — a scholarly global-health desk that respects rigor over hype. Contributions are edited toward that register. We favour plain, precise language a logistician can act on; we cut marketing vocabulary, undefined acronyms on first use, and confidence the evidence does not support.

Concretely: spell out a standard or programme on first reference, give figures their real-world conditions (a 72-hour holdover noted with the pre-conditioning it assumes), state the limits of what you know, and date your evidence. Write what happened in the field, not what a brochure claims. If you would not stand behind a sentence in front of the program that has to act on it, it does not belong in an assessment.

Correspondence

Queries to the desk

05 entries on file
Q1.Is this a manuscript-submission system?

No. International Health is not a primary-research journal and does not operate a paper-submission portal. These guidelines are for contributing documented field evidence and for reviewing equipment assessments. If you have field data, a challenge to a verdict, or expertise to review in, contact the editors directly.

Q2.What evidence is most useful to the desk?

Documented, dated, contextual field evidence: a logged equipment failure, a deployment outcome, a program evaluation that confirms or contradicts a catalogue claim — each tied to where, when, and under what conditions it occurred. Field-failure evidence is especially valued because it is what catalogues never show and what our field-suitability weighting depends on.

Q3.Why won't you publish a recommendation to buy a specific product?

Because grading is not endorsing. We assess a device against a published rubric and disclose the reasoning and the limits; we do not recommend a named product as a purchase the way a sales channel would. That separation is the basis of our independence, so endorsement language is edited out and we ask contributors and reviewers not to write in it.

Q4.What do I have to declare before contributing or reviewing?

Any financial, design, distribution, funding, or professional relationship you — or an organisation you represent — have with the device, its manufacturer, distributor, or a direct competitor, including a sample provided to you for evaluation. A disqualifying interest means you are excluded from that assessment; a perceivable but non-disqualifying one is disclosed on the review. Declare it up front, not after the fact.

Q5.What happens to my contribution after I send it?

It is characterised for credibility, weighed under the same rubric as any other source, and — where it informs a verdict — run through our peer-review process. It is dated and attributed where appropriate, treated as provisional where the evidence is thin, and the assessment it informs stays open to correction. Your standing does not override the evidence; the evidence earns its place in the review.

ArticleField Series

The standard your contribution will be held to

These guidelines tell you how to work with the desk; the policies they connect to tell you what your contribution will be measured against once it arrives. Field evidence is graded under our editorial standards — the durability, portability, and field-suitability rubric — and, where it informs a verdict, scrutinised under our peer-review policy before publication. The conduct expected of you, on conflicts of interest and the rule against named-product endorsement, is set out in full in our publication-ethics statement.

The standard does not end at publication. An assessment your evidence helped shape stays dated and open to challenge under our corrections-and-retractions policy; new evidence that sharpens or contradicts it is welcomed, not resisted. We are not a manuscript-submission portal and we charge no fees of any kind — there are no submission, processing, or reviewer charges. What we ask instead is documented, contextual, honestly-characterised evidence, brought by someone willing to declare any interest up front. The contribution earns its place in the record on that basis, and on no other.

End of section
From the editorial desk

Have field evidence, or want to review for the desk?

We are most useful when practitioners bring us what the catalogues cannot — a documented field failure, a deployment outcome, a changed specification — or lend their expertise to appraise an assessment. Reach out, declare any interest, and let the evidence do the work.

Contact the editorial desk