Peer review policy

The Journal of Health Informatics uses double-blind peer review: authors and reviewers do not know each other's identity throughout the process.

Stages

  1. Initial screening. The Editorial Team checks required documents, eligibility (scope, study type, ethics), anonymization, declarations and formatting rules. Incomplete manuscripts are returned to the authors with a list of what is missing; manuscripts out of scope or of a non-accepted type are rejected, always with a written reason.
  2. Editorial pre-assessment. Before inviting reviewers, the Editorial Team assesses merit with the same criteria used by reviewers. When a manuscript is not yet ready to go to peer review, the Editorial Team informs the authors of the decision, with the reasons and the guidance from the assessment.
  3. Peer review. 3 external reviewers from the field are invited. Each reviewer has 2 weeks to submit the review after accepting the invitation.
  4. Editorial decision. The decision is made on the first 2 reviews: accept, request revisions or reject. When reviews conflict, the Editorial Team may invite additional reviewers. Requests from reviewers and editors are combined into a single letter to the authors, organized point by point, separating what is required from what is recommended.
  5. Revised version. Authors respond point by point within 7 days. The Editorial Team checks each point and, when necessary, returns the manuscript to the reviewers or opens a new round.

Review criteria

Reviewers and the Editorial Team assess manuscripts on 8 criteria, scored from 1 (very unsatisfactory) to 5 (excellent):

  1. Relevance and fit with the journal's scope.
  2. Clarity and pertinence of the objectives.
  3. Methodological rigor.
  4. Consistency between methods, data and results.
  5. Discussion and conclusions supported by the results.
  6. Title, abstract and organization of the text.
  7. Tables, figures and references.
  8. Originality and potential impact.

The assessment also covers ethical issues (ethics approval, signs of plagiarism or overlap, undeclared AI use), the reviewer's recommendation, comments to authors and confidential comments to the editors.

Preprints and anonymity

Manuscripts with a public preprint are accepted. Review remains double-blind: reviewers are not given the preprint details. See Preprints and research data.

Appeals

Authors may submit 1 appeal per decision, within 7 days, on grounds of a factual error in a review or a deviation from the process, by e-mail to editorchefe.jhi@sbis.org.br. The appeal is handled by an editor who did not sign the decision. The reply is written and closes the case.

Manuscripts by members of the editorial team

Manuscripts authored by a member of the Editorial Team follow the same process, handled by an editor without conflict of interest; the author has no access to the reviewers' identity or to the review records. Research articles with at least one author from the editorial team (editors and editorial board) do not exceed 25% of the articles published in each calendar year, in line with the DOAJ criterion.

Confidentiality and AI in peer review

Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers do not share the text and do not enter it into tools that cannot ensure its confidentiality (ICMJE). Rules on reviewers' use of AI are in the Artificial intelligence policy.

Practical guidance for reviewers is in Reviewer guidelines; stages and deadlines in Editorial workflow.

Updated on 20 October 2026.