Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

All submissions are initially assessed by an Editor, who decides whether or not the article is suitable for peer review through a rigorous technical screening. This technical screening includes (but is not limited to): the originality of the paper (safeguarding against plagiarism), the formatting of the paper according to the JOHPEC guidelines, the overall language of the paper (grammar, etc.), and whether the topic of the paper relates to health policy and economics as per the mission of the journal.

Submissions considered suitable to proceed for peer-review are assigned to two or more subject experts (sourced from our international pool of peer-reviewers). The journal operates a double-blind peer-review process, meaning that authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. Upon reviewer assignments, the review period is expected to take around a month, although this can vary depending on reviewer availability. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal. Based on the reviewer reports, the editor will make a recommendation for rejection, minor or major revisions, or acceptance. Minor and major revisions should be made within a month and will be followed by a second review.

Overall editorial responsibility rests with the journal’s Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editor, who are supported by an expert, international Editorial Board.

Members of the editorial board are permitted to submit their own papers to the journal. In cases where an author is associated with the journal, they will be removed from all editorial tasks for that paper and another member of the team will be assigned responsibility for overseeing peer-review. A competing interest must also be declared within the submission and any resulting publication.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are asked to provide comment on the below topics and guidelines:

  • Content and Originality: Does the article fit within the scope of the journal? Is the submission original, relevant, and rigorous, i.e does it contain new and significant information to justify publication?
  • Relationship to Literature: Is the author’s depth of understanding of the issues researched adequate? Are the sources and references adequate? Has the existing knowledge base been explored and built upon?
  • Structure and argument: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Does the abstract summarise the arguments in a succinct and accurate way? Is the manuscript logically structured and do the arguments flow coherently? Does the introduction signpost the arguments in a logical way and does the conclusion adequately summarise them?
  • Methodology: Are the chosen methodologies appropriate and have they and the evidential base been appropriately used? Is there enough reference to methodology in the introduction and are the arguments fully evidenced and substantiated?
  • Figures/tables: Does the author’s use of tables, charts, figures or maps illustrate the arguments and support the evidential base? Is the quality of the formatting and presentation adequate?
  • Results, conclusion, and implications: Are the results presented clearly and analyzed appropriately? Does the conclusion reflect the argument in the main body text and bring something new to the debate? Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?
  • Quality of communication/Language: Is the text well written (i.e. clear), and tailored to the expected knowledge of its readership? Please comment on the quality of English and the need for grammatical improvement (e.g. sentence structure, acronyms, etc.)

Prior Publication

The journal is happy to accept submissions of papers that have been loaded onto preprint servers or personal websites, have been presented at conferences, or other informal communication channels. These formats will not be deemed prior publication. The journal accepts papers that have been published within formal conference proceedings, provided that the paper provides substantially more data, analysis, and/or discussion than the original conference paper. If the paper was presented but not formally published then more overlap is permitted. Authors must retain copyright to such postings. Authors are encouraged to link any prior posting of their paper to the final published version within the journal if it is editorially accepted.

Authorship

All listed authors must qualify as such, as defined in our authorship guidelines, which have been developed from the ICMJE definitions. All authors must have given permission to be listed on the submitted paper.

Competing Interests, Funding, and Ethics 

To ensure transparency, all authors, reviewers, and editors are required to declare any interests that could compromise, conflict, or influence the validity of the publication. Competing interests guidelines can be viewed here.

In addition, authors are required to specify funding sources and detail requirements for ethical research in the submitted manuscript, ensuring that ethical approval and consent statements are detailed within the manuscript (see Author Guidelines).

Corrections and Retractions

In accordance with guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (where applicable), the Press handles different kinds of errors. All articles have their proofs checked prior to publication by the author/editor, which should ensure that content errors are not present. Please contact your editorial manager if an article needs correcting.

Post-publication changes are not permitted to the publication, unless in exceptional circumstances. If an error is discovered in a published article then the publisher will assess whether a Correction paper or Retraction is required. Visit our Correction Policy page for more information.

Take Down Policy

Houghton St Press adheres to UK copyright law and respects intellectual property rights. If you are an author, rights holder or are authorized to act on behalf of an author/rights holder, and you are concerned at you have found material published in the Journal of Health Policy and Economics for which you have not given permission that infringes your copyright, you have the right to request its removal. For more information to help you understand whether an infringement has occurred and guidance on how to gather evidence to back up your request, see this Factsheet from the UK Copyright Service.

If you wish to request the removal of material, please contact us stating the following:

  • Your contact details: this should include your full name, title if acting on behalf of an organization, telephone number, email, and postal address.
  • The full bibliographic details of the material.
  • The exact and full URL where you found the material.
  • Proof that you are the rights holder and a statement that, under penalty of perjury, you are the rights holder or are an authorized representative.

Upon receipt of a request, the JOHPEC team will remove any alleged infringing content while an investigation is carried out. If it is concluded that the material is in breach of intellectual property rights, the material will be permanently withdrawn from the JOHPEC website.

Contact details:

Journal of Health Policy and Economics

Houghton St Press
LSE Library
10 Portugal Street
London
WC2A 2HD
 
lse.publishing@lse.ac.uk 
 

Misconduct and Complaints

Allegations of misconduct will be taken with utmost seriousness, regardless of whether those involved are internal or external to the journal, or whether the submission in question is pre- or post-publication. If an allegation of misconduct is made to the journal, it must be immediately passed on to the publisher, who will follow guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) on how to address the nature of the problem. Should the matter involve allegations against a member of the journal or publishing team, an independent and objective individual(s) may be sought to lead the investigation. Where misconduct is proven or strongly suspected, the journal has an obligation to report the issue to the author's institution, who may conduct their own investigation. This applies to both research misconduct (e.g. completing research without ethical approval and consent, fabricating or falsifying data etc) and publication misconduct (e.g. manipulating the peer review process, plagiarism etc). Should an investigation conclude that misconduct or misinformation has occurred then the author, along with their institution will be notified. Should the publication record need to be corrected, the journal's correction policy will be followed.

Should an author wish to lodge a complaint against an editorial decision or the editorial process in general they should first approach the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, explaining their complaint and ask for a reasoned response. Should this not be forthcoming or adequate, the author should raise the matter with the publisher, who will investigate the nature of the complaint and act as arbiter on whether the complaint should be upheld and investigated further. This will follow guidelines set out by COPE.

The journal does not tolerate abusive behaviour or correspondence towards its staff, academic editors, authors or reviewers. Any person engaged with the journal resorting to abusive behaviour or correspondence will have their contribution immediately withdrawn and future engagement with the journal will be at the discretion of the Editor and/or publisher.

Section Policies

Research

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Commentary

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Policy Briefs

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Review

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Quick links