Peer review policy
Peer Review Process
SAJPH uses a double-blind peer review process, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from each other throughout the review process.
The editorial team will request two-three reviews for every paper: one expert technical review; one reviewer with knowledge of the country or context that is the subject of the paper; and one methodological review. Depending on the type of paper, there may be additional needs for statistical or ethical opinions and these will be sought at the discretion of the Editor.
The editors are under no obligation to accept the judgements of a reviewer, or to send all comments to authors in cases where the editors feel the reviewers’ comments are contrary to the aims of the journal. However, all relevant and appropriate reviewers' reports will be sent to authors along with the publication decision: accept, accept with minor revision, major revision, or reject. All authors will receive a detailed justification for the publication decision.
If invited to submit a revised version of the paper, authors are required to address all reviewers' comments or to submit a justification for those that are ignored. Occasionally, a reviewer may be asked to look at the revised version of a paper for which they had provided substantial comments on the original version.
Selection of reviewers
Reviewers are selected from the Journal’s contacts, and from searches of bibliographic databases for the most relevant experts in the field. Efforts will be made to identify at least one person who is familiar with the country or context of the work described to ensure that opinions are obtained on the appropriateness for the situation as well as the technical details.
The name of the reviewers will be published in each issue to acknowledge their contributions.