Reviewer Guidelines

  • Does the submission fit the scope of the journal - is it aligned with the vision and mission?
    • Does it lend student or community voices to health equity issues?
    • Does it offer a nuanced, well-articulated, or underappreciated public health perspective?
    • Does it actively promote just and equitable health for all people?
  • Do you see the submission as interesting, timely, and pertinent to students and young professionals in the field of public health?
    • Does it share insightful narratives or relevant data and analysis?
    • Does it effectively leverage either personal experiences or academic or professional research (or a combination)?
  • Does the submission make a positive contribution to current issues and conversations in public health?
    • Is the submission unique - either a new take on a familiar issue, or an under-discussed public health problem?
    • Difficult topics should be tackled with the complexity that they require and authors should not be intentionally divisive. Is this article not divisive or too narrow in its lens that it detracts from the actual public health issue it seeks to highlight?
  • Is the submission clearly original, non-plagiarized work? Does it adhere to submission guidelines?
    • Does this submission appear to be the author’s own authentic work (i.e., it does not look eerily similar to another piece you have seen before from someone else)?
    • Was the author attentive to all submission guidelines for the journal?
  • Overall, is the information presented in a clear, succinct, and professional manner?
    • Is it generally well-written (i.e., it does not need a complete overhaul to be publishable)?
  • Is it written in a way that the readership will understand and resonate with?
    • Is it a compelling, enjoyable read?
    • Is it original (i.e., you do not find yourself feeling like you have read 100 others just like it)?
    • Is it captivating (i.e., it is not so dry that you keep zoning out or falling asleep)?