Peer Review Model

GJCCPH uses double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review for research articles and other externally peer-reviewed content. Reviewers do not normally see author identities, and authors do not normally see reviewer identities. Complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly where a preprint is publicly available.

Stage 1 — Technical Screening and Triage

Typical duration: approximately 2–7 days. The editorial office checks scope, anonymization, completeness of submission components, ethical documentation where required, reporting requirements, conflicts, CRediT information, Data Availability Statement, and similarity screening.

Stage 2 — Editorial Assessment

Typical duration: approximately 3–10 days. The Editor-in-Chief or a delegated editor assesses scope, originality, methodological suitability, ethical compliance, and whether external review is warranted.

Stage 3 — Reviewer Assignment

At least two independent external reviewers are normally sought for research articles, selected for relevant subject expertise and screened for material competing interests with the authors or manuscript.

Stage 4 — Review

Reviewers are normally invited to complete their reports within approximately 14–21 days. Reviewers evaluate scientific importance, methods, data and exposure validity, statistics, ethical compliance, clarity, uncertainty, limitations, reproducibility, and relevance to climate-health scholarship.

Stage 5 — Decision

The Handling Editor synthesizes the reports and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Decisions may include Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject with encouragement to resubmit, or Reject. A third reviewer may be sought when reports are materially divergent.

Stage 6 — Revision and Re-review

Authors provide a point-by-point response and, where requested, tracked and clean versions. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or reassessed editorially.

Stage 7 — Acceptance and Production

Following final acceptance, an invoice is issued, payment status is not used in academic decision-making. Production includes copyediting, typesetting, metadata preparation, DOI registration, proofing, and continuous online publication.

Typical Timelines

These are planning estimates, not guarantees: initial technical screening 2–7 days, editorial assessment 3–10 days, external review typically 2–4 weeks, production after acceptance typically 1–3 weeks. Once sufficient publication data are available, the journal will report observed median turnaround times.

Peer Review Exceptions

Editorials, Commentaries, Perspectives, and other designated editorial content may receive editorial assessment rather than external peer review, clearly identified as such. Special issues follow the same quality-control requirements as regular content, with guest editors subject to conflict-of-interest checks.

Publication Metadata

Published research articles display the dates of submission, acceptance, and publication when available, along with a unique, persistent article URL and DOI.