Journal of Pediatric Health and Nutrition
For Editors
A working guide for the editors who handle manuscripts for the journal: what to check at each stage, and what to do when something is wrong.
The policies themselves are on the Editorial Policies page, and what the journal publishes is on Aims and Scope. This page is about applying them.
- Review model
- Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
- Reviewers
- Normally at least two, after screening
- Independence
- Decisions are independent of payment and membership
First reading
Screening a new submission
Two separate judgments, made in this order: is the subject within the journal's remit, and is the manuscript complete enough to review.
- Subject eligibility. Ask only whether the manuscript addresses a substantive question about pediatric health, development, nutrition or care, as the Aims and Scope page defines it. Discipline, design and setting do not decide this.
- Quality is a later question. Whether the methods support the claims is assessed in review, not at triage. A manuscript is not out of scope because it looks weak, and it is not in scope because it looks strong.
- Completeness. Check that ethics approval, consent and assent, competing interests, funding, the data-availability statement and any trial registration are present, and that the reporting checklist for the design is attached.
- Returning a manuscript. Where a submission is outside the remit, say so promptly and plainly, and suggest the kind of venue that would suit it. Where it is in scope but incomplete, say exactly what is missing.
Handling
Assignment, reviewers and conflicts
The handling editor chooses the reviewers, reads what they send, and owns the decision that follows.
- Assignment
- A manuscript goes to an editor whose field covers its subject. Where it spans clinical and nutritional questions, involve reviewers from both rather than choosing between them.
- Selecting reviewers
- Look for expertise in the specific question, not only the general field, and include methodological or statistical expertise where the design calls for it. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
- Conflicts
- Check for shared institutions, recent collaboration, supervision, commercial relationships and personal connections before inviting a reviewer, and ask reviewers to declare anything you may not know.
- Recusal
- Recuse yourself from any manuscript you cannot assess impartially, including your own submissions and those of close collaborators. A recused editor takes no part in the decision, which is reassigned and made independently.
- Confidentiality
- A submitted manuscript is confidential. Do not disclose it, circulate it, or use its content before publication, and do not reveal reviewer identities to the authors.
- Double-blind requests
- When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
Research with children
What to look for in a pediatric manuscript
The protections that matter most are the ones easiest to leave out of a manuscript: who consented, who assented, and what could identify a child.
Check that permission from a parent or legal guardian is described, that the child's own assent is recorded where the child was able to give it, and that permission to publish identifying material is separate and in writing.
Where a figure, a case description or a combination of details could identify a child, ask for the identifying material to be removed or for the specific written permission that covers it.
Also check
- Trial registration: the registry, number and date, with registration at or before the first participant's consent for enrollment.
- That the age band is stated as measured, and that conclusions are confined to the ages actually studied.
- That nutritional and clinical claims match the design — an observational study does not establish that an intervention works.
- The data-availability statement, including whether controlled access is warranted for sensitive data about children.
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured. The same restriction applies to editors handling a manuscript.
Deciding
Reading the reviews and reaching a decision
Reviews inform the decision; they do not cast votes. The editor weighs them and explains the outcome.
Read each review for the evidence behind it. A recommendation without reasons carries little weight; a careful minority objection may carry a great deal. Where reviewers disagree on something material, seek a further opinion rather than averaging them.
Set aside comments that are not about the work — the authors' institution, country, seniority or language. Where a review is discourteous, do not pass it on unedited.
Give the authors a decision letter that says what is required, distinguishes the essential from the desirable, and can be acted on. On a revision, check that each point has been addressed or answered.
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
After publication
Appeals, complaints and corrections
The editor's responsibility does not end at acceptance.
- Appeals. An appeal against a decision is considered by an editor who was not responsible for it. Reconsider the reasons given, not the fact of the appeal.
- Complaints. Complaints about the conduct of the journal go to the editorial office and are handled under COPE guidance.
- Corrections. An error affecting the record is corrected by a published notice linked from the article, which stays available.
- Retractions and expressions of concern. Where findings are unreliable or publication ethics were breached, issue a retraction stating who issued it and why. Where an investigation is unresolved, an expression of concern informs readers in the meantime.
- Misconduct. Allegations are investigated under COPE guidance, with the authors given an opportunity to respond and their institution involved where that is appropriate.
- Independence. No fee, membership, service or role alters any of the above.
Alongside this guide
The documents an editor works from
Each of these states in full what this guide applies in practice.
- The remit
- Aims and Scope
- The rules
- Editorial Policies
- The reviewers
- For Reviewers
Editors who would like to discuss a manuscript, a conflict or an appeal can write to [email protected]. An editorial role confers no advantage in the review or acceptance of the editor's own manuscripts.