Skip to main content
Menu
Language
Appearance
Editorial Board

The Editorial Board

About the Masthead·Institutional·People & Roles·Peer-reviewed in spirit · Educational

How review is governed at the International Health Journal — described by role and responsibility, honestly, rather than by named individuals or credentials we have not earned.

How review is structuredBy which we judge field gear
01Criterion
2
Independent readers on every published review — author and challenger
Review structure
02Criterion
4
Desk roles, one per standing review desk
Board structure
03Criterion
1
Standards function that holds every desk to a common bar
Oversight
04Criterion
Open
Conflicts of interest declared and recorded
Ethics
Standards of the desk
ArticleField Series
A note on honesty

Roles, not invented names

Many journals publish a masthead of named board members. We have made a deliberate choice to describe our editorial board by function rather than by individual. We would rather be transparent about how review actually works here than present a list of names and affiliations we cannot fully stand behind.

What follows is therefore a description of the roles that govern review, the responsibilities attached to each, and the checks that keep them independent. This is the real structure that decides what reaches the page — and it is held to account by our governance and publication ethics.

End of section
Roles on the board

The functions that govern review

Every published piece passes through these roles. They exist to ensure that no single voice decides what the journal concludes.

  1. 01
    Lead Editor

    Sets standards and resolves disputes

    Holds the common bar across all four desks, arbitrates disagreement between readers, and is accountable for the integrity of what is published.

  2. 02
    Desk Editors

    One per standing desk

    A cold-chain, diagnostics, outbreak-response and WASH desk editor — each responsible for the evidence and conclusions within their remit.

    Read more
  3. 03
    Reviewing Reader

    Challenges every conclusion

    A second reader who independently tests each review, flags weak evidence and ensures the framing is honest about uncertainty.

  4. 04
    Standards Function

    Guards the method

    Maintains the editorial standards and peer-review policy, and audits whether each piece actually met them before release.

    Read the standards
  5. 05
    Contributors

    Field reporters and specialists

    People working in low-resource settings who supply field reports, drafts and corrections under our contributor guidelines.

    Contribute
  6. 06
    Corrections Custodian

    Keeps the public record straight

    Owns the corrections and retractions log and ensures errors are posted openly and promptly.

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

No single reader decides

The board is structured so that the author of a review is never its only judge. A reviewing reader challenges every conclusion, the desk editor owns the evidence within their remit, and the lead editor arbitrates where they disagree.

Conflicts of interest are declared and recorded under our publication ethics. Where a reader has any stake in the subject of a review, they recuse themselves from judging it. This separation of roles is the practical machinery of independence.

The board in action

How the roles work together on a review

A single review moves through the board in a fixed sequence, with responsibility handed clearly from role to role.

  1. 01Step

    Desk editor commissions

    The relevant desk editor identifies a subject within scope and commissions or drafts the review against the evidence.

  2. 02Step

    Reviewing reader challenges

    A second, independent reader tests the conclusions, demands sources for weak claims and stresses the field framing.

  3. 03Step

    Lead editor arbitrates

    Where author and reader disagree, the lead editor decides on the strength of evidence, not seniority.

  4. 04Step

    Standards function signs off

    Before release, the standards function confirms the piece met the editorial standards and peer-review policy.

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

When the board is wrong

No board is infallible. What distinguishes a trustworthy one is what it does with error. When a published conclusion turns out to be mistaken, the corrections custodian records it openly and the relevant desk editor revisits the evidence.

Readers can flag a suspected error directly to the desk. Our corrections and retractions policy sets out exactly how those flags are handled and how quickly. Accountability that only operates in private is not accountability at all.

ArticleField Series
Joining the board

Becoming a contributor or reader

The journal grows by drawing in people who actually work where health is hardest to deliver. We welcome field reporters, specialists and reviewing readers with direct experience of cold chain, diagnostics, outbreak response or WASH infrastructure in low-resource settings.

Contributors work under our contributor guidelines, which set out how drafts are submitted, how conflicts of interest are declared, and how authorship and review responsibilities are assigned. If you would like to contribute a field report, suggest a topic, or volunteer as a reviewing reader, write to the editorial desk. We read every approach, and we value field experience above formal credentials.

End of section
Correspondence

Queries to the desk

05 entries on file
Q1.Why don't you list named board members?

We describe the board by role and responsibility rather than by invented names. We prefer transparency about how review actually works to a masthead of credentials we cannot fully verify and stand behind.

Q2.How many people review each piece?

At minimum, an author and an independent reviewing reader, with the desk editor and lead editor available to arbitrate. The full sequence is set out in our peer-review policy.

Q3.How are conflicts of interest handled?

They are declared and recorded, and any reader with a stake in a subject recuses themselves from judging it. See our publication ethics.

Q4.Can I join as a reviewing reader?

Yes — we particularly welcome people with direct field experience. Start with our contributor guidelines and write to the editorial desk.

Q5.Who has the final say on what is published?

The lead editor arbitrates disputes and is accountable for integrity, but decisions are made on the strength of evidence, not seniority — and the standards function audits that the method was followed.

From the editorial desk

Review, governed openly

See how the board's roles translate into method — read the peer-review policy and the editorial standards that bind every desk.