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
Governance

Governance

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

How decisions are made at the International Health Journal, who is accountable for them, and how editorial independence is protected structurally rather than merely promised.

Publication ethicsEditorial standards
Governance in briefBy which we judge field gear
01Criterion
Separated
Review roles kept distinct so no single voice decides what we publish
Structure
02Criterion
Declared
Conflicts of interest declared and recorded, with recusal where needed
Ethics
03Criterion
Documented
Standards written down so discipline doesn't depend on memory or goodwill
Method
04Criterion
Public
Corrections and changes recorded openly in the public record
Transparency
Standards of the desk
ArticleField Series
Why governance matters

Independence has to be built, not declared

Any publication can declare itself independent. The question that matters is whether its structure makes independence enforceable when it is inconvenient — when a favourable conclusion would be commercially convenient, or an unfavourable one would be awkward. Governance is the machinery that answers that question.

At the International Health Journal, independence is protected by separating the roles that produce a review from the roles that judge it, by requiring conflicts of interest to be declared, and by documenting the standards every piece must meet. These are not aspirations; they are the working rules of the desk, set out below and cross-referenced to the policies that enforce them.

End of section
How decisions are made

The structures that govern the journal

Governance here is the sum of a few clear structures, each documented and each with a defined accountability.

  1. 01
    Editorial roles

    Separation of duties

    Author, reviewing reader, desk editor and lead editor are distinct roles, so no one both writes and unilaterally judges a review.

    The board
  2. 02
    Standards

    A documented method

    Editorial standards and a peer-review policy define what every piece must satisfy before release, audited by the standards function.

    Read the standards
  3. 03
    Ethics

    Conflict-of-interest rules

    Interests are declared and recorded; readers with a stake in a subject recuse themselves from judging it.

    Read the ethics
  4. 04
    Corrections

    Open accountability

    Errors are recorded in a public log, keeping the record trustworthy rather than tidy.

    Read the policy
  5. 05
    Access

    Open by default

    Our open-access policy is a governance commitment — knowledge is published to be used, not gated.

    Read the policy
  6. 06
    Contributors

    Clear contribution terms

    Contributor guidelines govern how outside work is submitted, reviewed, credited and corrected.

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

Walls between influence and judgement

The central governance choice is structural separation. The person who authors a review does not get to be its only judge; a reviewing reader independently challenges it, and a desk editor owns the evidence within their remit. Where they disagree, the lead editor arbitrates on the strength of evidence, not on seniority.

Commercial influence is kept out by design. We accept no payment to feature a product and carry no advertising that shapes coverage, and any interest is declared and recorded under our publication ethics. These walls are what make our independence real.

Read our publication ethics
Governance in action

How a decision is taken and held to account

From commissioning a review to correcting an error, governance follows a defined sequence with clear ownership at each stage.

  1. 01Step

    Commission within scope

    A desk editor commissions or drafts a review that sits clearly within the journal's documented aims and scope.

  2. 02Step

    Independent challenge

    A reviewing reader, free of any conflict, challenges the conclusions and demands sources for weak claims.

  3. 03Step

    Arbitrate on evidence

    Disagreements are resolved by the lead editor on the strength of evidence, with the reasoning recorded.

  4. 04Step

    Audit and correct

    The standards function confirms the method was followed before release, and any later error is logged openly.

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

Accountability that operates in public

Governance is tested not when everything works but when something fails. A trustworthy structure handles its errors openly. When a published conclusion proves mistaken, the relevant desk editor revisits the evidence and the correction is recorded in a public log rather than quietly edited away.

Readers can flag a suspected error directly to the desk, and our corrections and retractions policy sets out how those flags are handled and how quickly. Accountability that only operates behind closed doors is not accountability at all.

How we handle corrections
ArticleField Series
Changing the rules

How the journal changes itself

Governance also covers how the journal changes its own remit, standards and structure. Such changes are not made casually. A change to scope or method is decided through the same separated-roles process that governs a review: proposed, challenged, arbitrated on evidence, and then recorded openly so the public history stays honest.

This is why our history reads as a series of deliberate refinements rather than silent edits. When the journal evolves, the evolution is documented. If you believe a rule here should change — or is not being followed — the editorial desk is the place to say so, and we treat such challenges as part of governance, not a nuisance to it.

End of section
Correspondence

Queries to the desk

05 entries on file
Q1.Who has ultimate authority at the journal?

The lead editor is accountable for editorial integrity and arbitrates disputes, but decisions are made on the strength of evidence, and the standards function audits that the method was followed. See the editorial board.

Q2.How is commercial influence kept out structurally?

Through separated review roles, declared and recorded conflicts of interest, and a strict no-paid-coverage rule. A favourable review cannot be bought and an unfavourable one cannot be suppressed. Our publication ethics set this out.

Q3.What stops an author marking their own homework?

Separation of duties. A reviewing reader independently challenges every review, and the desk and lead editors own the evidence and arbitration. No author is the sole judge of their own piece.

Q4.How are conflicts of interest handled?

They are declared and recorded, and any reader with a stake in a subject recuses themselves. The full rule lives in our publication ethics.

Q5.How can someone challenge a governance decision?

Write to the editorial desk. We treat challenges as part of governance, and any resulting correction is recorded openly under our corrections and retractions policy.

From the editorial desk

Independence you can inspect

Every structure here is documented and cross-checked by policy. Read the ethics and standards that give governance its teeth.

Read our publication ethics