For Reviewer

The unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Reviewers are expected not to cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published, and to refrain from using the information it contains for the advancement of their own research.
A reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review. Your position should be that of the author’s ally, with the aim of promoting effective and accurate scientific communication.
If you believe that you cannot judge a given article impartially, please return the manuscript immediately to the editor with that explanation.
Reviews should be completed expeditiously, within 3-4 weeks. If you know that you cannot finish the review within the time specified, please inform the editor.
A reviewer should not discuss a paper with its author/s. If you want to consult a colleague or junior please discuss this with us first.
Please do not make any specific statement about the acceptability of a paper in your comments for transmission to the author, but advise the editor on sheet provided.
In your review, please consider the following aspects of the manuscript as far as they are applicable:

Scientific reliability
Importance (clinical or otherwise) of the question or subject studied
Originality (truly original or known to you through foreign or specialist publications or through the grapevine)
Adequacy of abstract, keywords.
Appropriateness of approach or experimental design, adequacy of experimental techniques (including statistics where appropriate, need for statistical assessment). Methods adequately described? Appropriate? Patients studied adequately described and their condition defined?
Are results relevant to the problem posed? Credible? Well presented?
The soundness of conclusions and interpretation. Interpretation and conclusions warranted by the data? Reasonable speculation? Is the message clear?
Relevance of discussion
References up to date and relevant? Any glaring omissions?
The relevance of the figures and table, clarity of legends and titles.
Suitability for the JEFI and overall recommendations. Appropriate for general readership or more appropriate for a specialist journal?
If not acceptable can the paper be made so?
Ethical aspects
Overall presentation (including writing style, clarity of writing)

In comments intended for the author’s, criticism should be presented dispassionately, and abrasive remarks avoided.
Suggested revisions should be couched as such, and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Please distinguish between revisions considered essential and those judged merely desirable.
Even if we do not accept a paper we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it. For this reason please give detailed comments (with references, if appropriate) that will help both the editors to make a decision on the paper and the authors to improve it.
Your criticism, arguments, and suggestions concerning that paper will be most useful to the editor if they are carefully documented.
You are not requested to correct mistakes/s in grammar, but any help in this regard will be appreciated.
The editor gratefully receives a reviewer’s recommendations, but since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer should not expect the editor to honour his or her every recommendation.
Please check for plagiarism using the link provided https://www.plagramme.com

(These guidelines are based on the guidelines provided by Council of Science Editors)

These guidelines provide instructions and criteria for evaluating manuscripts for a double-blind peer review process. The authors' and reviewers' identities are kept strictly confidential.

Invitation to Review: Initial Considerations

Before accepting a review invitation, please ensure:

Availability and Timeliness: Healthline requests article review response within one week and completion of review within two weeks. If you require a longer period or are unable to meet the deadline, please contact the editor.
Confidentiality: Reviewers are obligated to maintain confidentiality throughout the review process. Do not share, discuss, or disclose any information about the manuscript with others without prior permission from the editorial office.
Misconduct: If reviewer suspect any form of misconduct, such as plagiarism or data fabrication, it must be informed to the editor with specific details.
Use of AI: All evaluations must be conducted personally by the reviewer. Reviewer should not use AI tools for revieing whole manuscript or part of manuscript, as human expertise and critical judgment are essential to maintaining the integrity and quality of the peer review process
Conflict of Interest: Inform the editor if any conflicts exist.
Manuscript File Commenting: Reviewers are requested to provide specific comments or suggested edits directly within the blinded manuscript file using comments or track changes, in addition to their structured review form.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript objectively and constructively, focusing on its suitability for Journal.

Overall Quality and Suitability

Reviewers should consider the following core aspects while evaluating the manuscript:

Originality: Does the manuscript present original data or analysis not previously published, and does it offer a unique perspective or address a gap in current knowledge?
Innovation: Does the manuscript present novel ideas or findings? Does it introduce innovative methods, perspectives, or interpretations?
Technical Merit: Are the scientific methods and techniques appropriate and robust?
Applicability: Does the study offer practical implications or applications in real-world public health settings?
Presentation and English: Is the manuscript clearly written and grammatically correct?
Relevance to Public Health: Is the content aligned with the scope and mission of Community Medicine and Public Health?
References: Are they latest, appropriate, and correctly formatted?

Section-wise Evaluation

Title: Specific, aligned with the article’s content
Abstract: describes study’s purpose, hypothesis, key methods, findings, conclusions and MeSH keywords within the word limit of 250.
Introduction: Clearly outlines the rationale and public health relevance of the study, supported by appropriate references. Should highlight gaps in existing knowledge and end with clearly stated objectives.
Methods: Detailed methodology including study plan, materials and methods used. Explain sample size justification with sampling technique used. Elaborate ethical considerations.
Results: See if correct statistical analysis used with appropriate interpretation. Are findings given in the tables and graphs matches with the content given?
Discussion and Recommendations: Interprets the key findings in context with existing literature. Highlights the strengths, limitations, and relevance of the study.
Recommendations: Balanced, evidence-based and based on the study findings.
References: Vancouver style, citations numbers in superscripted square brackets
Tables & Figures: Clear, well-labelled, with APA style.
Reporting Guidelines: Encourage authors to use relevant reporting guidelines (e.g., STROBE for observational studies, CONSORT for trials, PRISMA for reviews). The Equator initiative (https://www.equator-network.org) provides accessible tools.
For the section specific guideline, kindly refer to Authors Guidelines.

Format for Review Report

Providing Specific Feedback: Justify the recommendations given by the reviewers. When making specific comments, consider numbering your points and referring to page and line numbers in the manuscript.
Constructive Tone: Provide positive feedback first. Use respectful language. Frame suggestions as recommendations, distinguishing between essential revisions (major compulsory) and desirable ones (minor essential or discretionary).

Making Recommendations

Accept: Suitable without changes (rare)

Minor Revision: Minor changes before acceptance

Major Revision: Substantial changes and potentially re-review

Reject: Not suitable for publication in current form

The final decision rests with the editorial team. Reviewers’ recommendations as well as the editors' own assessment will be considered for decision.

Ethical and Confidential Conduct

Maintain strict confidentiality
Avoid using manuscript content
Report ethical concerns to the editor