Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Journal of Health Design (JHD) is a peer-reviewed scientific publication. We aim to publish papers describing the development and evaluation of innovations to improve the patient experience of health care. Most research published tackles challenges from the perspective of the end user of health services. The JHD offers expert opinion and thought leadership and has a global outlook.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Editorial

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Research

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Clinical Audit

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review (Multimedia Presentation)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Debate (Multimedia Presentation)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Brief Report

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Conference Abstracts

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Research Protocol

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Series

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Study

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Letter to the Editor

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Book Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Retraction

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

From the Editor

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Clinical Insight

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Research Insight

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Infographic

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Design Insight

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Audit

 

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Quality Improvement

 

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The Journal of Health Design uses "double blind" peer review, which means the identity of the authors and the reviewers are not disclosed throughout the peer review process.

To ensure anonymity during peer review, please do not include any personal identifying information in your manuscript. For example, do not name the site of your study (e.g., hospital name, clinic name, town where study took place). The reviewers comments will be relayed to authors asap. We require authors to address every comment even if it is to say why you might disagree with a suggestion. Once a revised version of the paper is uploaded we will seek further comments from the reviewers and a senior editor before a final decision is made. Following publication it will not be possible to make changes to the paper. If a retraction is required the authors must submit a reason for the retraction which will be published by the journal.

Publication ethics

The JHD adheres to the highest standards with regard to publication ethics. The journal specifically refers to the the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK), an online resource to support journal editors in handling publishing ethics allegations. Please follow the hyperlink for detailed advice which is summarised below. The policies relate to the following circumstances. Please follow the hyperlinks for the action that the JHD might choose to take in each circumstance:

  1. Authorship complaints It is important that every author of a contribution be credited as such. It is equally as important that a person not be named as an author when he or she is not.
  2.  Plagiarism complaints Plagiarism is committed when one author uses another work (typically the work of another author) without permission, credit, or acknowledgment. Plagiarism takes different forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another.
  3.  Multiple, duplicate, concurrent publication/simultaneous submission. Articles submitted for publication must be original and must not have been submitted to any other publication. Except in very unusual circumstances (and then only with the agreement of the editor), authors are expected to submit articles that are original and have not been submitted to any other publication. Occasionally, authors may disregard this requirement, submitting the same paper to multiple journals or submitting multiple papers based on the same research. This would constitute a breach of the JHD policy.
  4.  Research results misappropriation. Authorship of research results is generally a verifiable question of fact. If there is any question as to whether research results reported in a submitted article are original to the purported author or authors, the JHD will make inquiries of the authors and/or their institutions. The editor is well positioned to know what research is being carried out at any particular time, at any particular place, and by whom. This knowledge will assist us in directing inquiries to the appropriate individuals and institutions to verify whether a research claim is genuine. In addition, the JHD may want to seek guidance from other specialists in the field of research.
  5.  Allegations of research errors and fraud. Where referees or readers report to the JHD or editor saying that: certain laboratories do not have the facilities to conduct the research they published; the gel images look manipulated; the data from the control experiments is too perfect, etc., then the possibility of fraud needs to be considered. Fraud is publishing data or conclusions that were not generated by experiments or observations, but by data manipulation or invention. Changing the data measurements to conveniently fit the desired end result is fraud, but excluding inconvenient results is deliberate research error, which, in effect, is the same end result – fraud.
  6.  Research standards violations. Research standards violations normally come to light when a referee sees that there was no informed consent on human subjects, or that  animal protection protocols were not  followed for a piece of research.
  7.  Undisclosed conflicts of interest. Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as "dual commitments", "competing interests", or "competing loyalties").
  8.  Reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers. The JHD will reject reviewers with obvious potential conflicts of interest, for example, those who work in the same department or institution as any of the authors. Authors often provide editors with the names of persons they feel should not be asked to review a manuscript because of potential conflicts of interest, usually professional. Where possible, authors should be asked to explain or justify their concerns - this information is important to editors in deciding whether to honour such requests.

 

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.