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

Peer Review at International Health

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

Before an equipment assessment carries the journal's name, it is read against the same rubric by someone who did not write it. This page sets out our review model, how reviewers are chosen, how conflicts of interest are managed, the timelines we hold ourselves to, and how a contributor can appeal a decision they believe is wrong.

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 review

A review model fitted to field-equipment assessment

International Health no longer publishes original clinical trials, so our review process is not the manuscript-handling apparatus of a primary-research journal. What we publish is a graded assessment of field-ready equipment, reached under a published rubric. Peer review here means an independent check that the rubric was applied correctly, the evidence was characterised honestly, and the verdict follows from what was found.

We operate a single-anonymised model as standard: the reviewer knows the assessment is the desk's, but the contributor of any field evidence under examination is not identified to the reviewer unless disclosure is required to judge a conflict. For contested or high-stakes assessments — a verdict that diverges sharply from a manufacturer's stated performance, or one a program intends to act on at scale — a second independent reviewer is added. We state the review depth applied to each published assessment.

Our field-equipment review method

How an assessment moves through review

Every draft assessment follows the same path before publication, so the bar does not move with the subject.

  1. 01Step

    Editorial screen

    An editor first checks the draft is in scope, applies the published rubric, and carries the evidence basis required for review. Drafts that rest on uncharacterised or undated evidence are returned to the desk before any reviewer's time is spent.

  2. 02Step

    Reviewer assignment

    The assessment is matched to a reviewer with relevant field or category expertise — cold chain, diagnostics, outbreak response, or WASH — who holds no interest in the outcome. The match is recorded so it can be examined if the verdict is later challenged.

  3. 03Step

    Independent appraisal

    The reviewer tests the chain of reasoning: were specifications mapped to the right standards, was field-failure evidence weighed fairly, does the field-suitability weighting hold, and is every limit of the evidence stated? They recommend accept, revise, or reject with reasons.

  4. 04Step

    Revision and reconciliation

    Substantive points are resolved with the desk before publication. Where reviewer and desk disagree, an editor adjudicates against the rubric and records the basis for the decision rather than splitting the difference.

  5. 05Step

    Decision and disclosure

    On acceptance, the assessment is dated, its review depth noted, and any disclosures attached. On rejection, the contributor receives the reasons. The decision and its grounds are part of the record, not a private exchange.

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

How reviewers are chosen — and excluded

Reviewers are selected for demonstrable expertise in the category under assessment and for independence from its outcome. We prefer practitioners who have deployed, maintained, or evaluated the class of equipment in low-resource settings, because field-suitability is the axis we weight most heavily and it is hardest to judge from a distance.

A reviewer is excluded from any assessment where they — or an organisation they represent — designed, manufactured, distributed, funded, or hold a financial stake in the device or a direct competitor, or where a prior professional association could be reasonably perceived to bear on their judgment. Exclusion is the default when the position is unclear; we would rather lose a qualified reviewer than seat a conflicted one. Reviewers confirm the absence of such interests before they are assigned.

How conflicts are governed
Review criteriaBy which we judge field gear
01Criterion
2
Independent reviewers on contested or high-stakes verdicts
02Criterion
21
Working days targeted from assignment to first decision
03Criterion
0
Vendor right of pre-approval over any assessment
04Criterion
100%
Decisions returned to contributors with reasons
Standards of the desk
Plate II
Fig. — field plate
Figure. Engraved reference plate — evaluating equipment on field resilience, not lab-bench ideals.
Timelines

The pace we hold ourselves to

Slow review is its own kind of failure when a program is waiting on a procurement decision. We target a first decision within 21 working days of reviewer assignment, with screening completed inside five. Assessments requiring a second reviewer, or fresh field evidence to resolve a disputed point, take longer; when that happens we say so to the contributor rather than letting a review go quiet.

These are targets, openly stated, not guarantees — field expertise is scarce and we will not trade rigor for speed. Where an assessment bears on an active outbreak response, we prioritise it and note the expedited handling on the published verdict so the shorter timeline is visible, not hidden.

From the review desk

What a reviewer is asked to test

A review here is not a thumbs-up. It is a structured appraisal of whether the rubric was applied correctly, against four questions the reviewer must answer in writing.

  1. 01

    Was the evidence characterised honestly?

    The reviewer checks that every source is labelled for what it is — a specification, a standard, a study, a logged field report — and that thin or undated evidence is marked provisional rather than dressed as certainty. An assessment that overstates its evidence base is returned regardless of its verdict.

  2. 02

    Were specifications mapped to the right standards?

    Manufacturer claims must be checked against the relevant WHO PQS performance specifications and recognised category standards, and those standards must be cited by their published role — never implying a certification a device does not hold. The reviewer confirms the mapping is correct and the references honest.

  3. 03

    Does the field-suitability weighting hold?

    Field-suitability is the axis weighted most heavily, so the reviewer scrutinises it hardest: is the deployment context real, is field-failure evidence weighed fairly against the catalogue spec, and would the grade change under the realistic operating envelope? A weighting asserted but not reasoned does not pass.

  4. 04

    Are the limits of the verdict stated?

    Every assessment must say what it does not cover and under what conditions the grade would move. The reviewer confirms those limits are explicit, so a reader acting on the verdict can see exactly how far it extends and where it stops — the precondition for an honest, correctable record.

Correspondence

Queries to the desk

05 entries on file
Q1.Which review model do you use, and why single-anonymised?

Single-anonymised is our standard: reviewers appraise the assessment without the contributor of underlying field evidence being named to them, unless naming is required to judge a conflict of interest. We chose it over fully open review because field-evidence contributors in some settings face professional risk in naming a failed device or a struggling program, and over double-anonymised because the desk's authorship of an assessment is not concealable. Contested verdicts get a second independent reviewer.

Q2.How are conflicts of interest handled in review?

A reviewer is excluded from any assessment in which they or their organisation have a financial, design, distribution, or funding interest in the device or a direct competitor, or where a prior association could be perceived to bear on their judgment. Reviewers confirm independence before assignment; exclusion is the default when the position is ambiguous. The broader framework is set out in our publication-ethics statement.

Q3.What are your review timelines?

We target a first decision within 21 working days of reviewer assignment, with the initial editorial screen completed inside five. Second-reviewer cases and disputes that need new field evidence take longer, and we tell the contributor when that is so. Assessments tied to an active outbreak response are expedited, and the expedited handling is noted on the published verdict.

Q4.Can a contributor appeal a decision?

Yes. A contributor who believes a decision rests on a factual error, a misapplication of the rubric, or a reviewer conflict may request reconsideration in writing, setting out the specific grounds. An editor not involved in the original decision examines the appeal. If it has merit, the assessment is re-reviewed — by a different reviewer where appropriate — and the outcome, with its reasons, is returned to the contributor. Appeals are decided on the evidence and the rubric, not on persistence.

Q5.Does a vendor ever see a review before publication?

No manufacturer, distributor, or supplier reviews, pre-approves, or holds any veto over an assessment before it is published. Where we put a specific factual claim to a vendor to confirm a specification, that exchange is limited to the fact in question and does not extend to the verdict or the grade.

ArticleField Series

One discipline, checked at the right moment

Peer review is the second of three checkpoints in a single discipline. Our editorial standards define the rubric a device is graded against; this policy defines how a draft assessment is independently scrutinised before it carries the journal's name; and our publication-ethics statement defines the conduct expected of everyone who touches a review — on authorship, conflicts of interest, and the handling of allegations. A grade that fails any one of the three does not run.

When something goes wrong after publication, the discipline does not end — it moves to our corrections-and-retractions policy, which repairs the record in the open. Our review practice follows the spirit of widely-recognised guidance on publication and research integrity; we state those principles as our own commitments rather than claiming formal membership of any ethics body or an accreditation we do not hold. The standard we ask reviewers to apply is the same one we ask readers to hold us to: stated plainly, dated, and open to challenge.

End of section
From the editorial desk

Reviewing for International Health, or appealing a decision?

We are always seeking practitioners who can appraise field equipment with no stake in the outcome — and we want to hear from any contributor who believes a decision should be reconsidered on the evidence. Both strengthen the record.

Contact the editorial desk