Editorial Policies

» Focus and Scope
» Section Policies
» Peer Review Process
» Publication Frequency
» Open Access Policy
» Archiving
» Comments Policy
» Plagiarism
» Publication fees
» Licensing Information
» Publishing Rights
» Policy on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent for publications
» Publication ethics and Malpratice Statement

Focus and Scope

Southern African Journal of Publich Health incorporating Strengthening Health Systems invites submissions that:

Promote greater understanding of health systems in all contexts
Highlight interventions that work and those that do not
Identify lessons that future policy makers and programme designers can learn from, and
Highlight knowledge gaps that will refine the health system research agenda.

The core content of the journal is original scientific reports and discussion papers on successes and failures in health system strengthening interventions worldwide, with a focus on identifying lessons that future programme designers and policy makers can learn from, and knowledge gaps to be filled through academic study. In recognition of the fact that success or failure depends on many external factors that may be unrelated to the technical aspects of project design, SAJPH will publish analyses of the political, social, cultural and economic environment of health systems interventions to further understanding of what works and what does not in specific contexts. Shorter comment articles on issues of controversy or debate in any area of health systems science or intervention are also welcome.

Educational articles focusing on, for example, issues related to the use of programmatic and operational data, trends in impact analysis and evaluations, and appropriate indicators of health system strengthening, will be commissioned by the editorial team with guidance from the International Advisory Board.

The journal also intends to be a forum for debate about how best to apply the conventions of scientific investigation to health and development challenges; how to report on health systems interventions in ways that are useful for all prospective audiences; and to facilitate consensus-building on the tools and techniques that practitioners can use to improve the rigor of the field.

Section Policies

Editorial

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Comment

Comment: 1 000 words, 10 references, one figure or table. Pre-submission enquiry strongly advised.

Comment articles are editorial-style pieces that present an argument or discuss a topical development in the field. They should be concise and tightly written articles with a clear point. Links to current events, publications, conferences, or announcements are encouraged. Comment articles can be a maximum of 1200 words with 10 references and one image or table. Pre-submission enquiry is strongly advised. These articles will be reviewed internally but only sent for external peer review if the editor deems it necessary.

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Email the editorial team directly at publishing@samedical.org for assistance.

SAJPH is actively engaged in addressing the 5/95 health systems publications gap - a term coined by the WHO-based Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research to describe the imbalance between the numbers of publications on health systems from developing and developed countries, respectively. This policy means the journal will provide thorough feedback to all prospective authors who submit pre-submission enquiries or full papers, and support non-academic authors to apply the conventions of scientific reporting. If the paper is not of sufficient quality and interest for peer review, the feedback will be from the editorial team alone. For those papers that meet the journal's content guidelines and quality standards, external reviewers' opinions will be sought to support the editorial decision-making process.

The 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 recieve 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 maybe 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.

How long does the review process take?

The entire process of peer review and revision of the paper has a target timeline of 6 weeks to 2 months.

Appealing a publication decision

In cases where authors strongly disagree with the decision of the editorial team to reject their paper, an appeal can be lodged with the Editor. The appeal will be referred to the Editor in Chief of the Health and Medical Publishing Group, who will review the editorial decision-making process and provide feedback to both editors and authors on the outcome.

Becoming a reviewer for SHS

If you would like to be added to the journal's roster of reviewers please contact the Editor, Prof Debashis Basu (Debashis.Basu@up.ac.za), with your name, contact details and keywords describing your areas of expertise and country experience.

Technical assistance: Peer Review

Enrol as a reviewer

The SAJPH encourages readers who are actively involved in research and with particular expertise to serve as peer reviewers of the journal:

Already a registered user? Login to the journal website and edit your profile to include 'Reviewer' as a role. Kindly express your interest to serve as a reviewer in an email to submissions@hmpg.co.za, specifying your user login.
Not a registered user? Reviewers are required to register with the journal website. Kindly also express your interest to serve as a reviewer in an email to Debashis.Basu@up.ac.za. Please read our privacy policy regarding registration.

---

Accepting/declining an invitation to review

An invitation to review will be sent via email from the journal system, and will provide submission details such as the manuscript title and abstract. Reviewers will be asked to indicate their acceptance/decline to review by a specified date, and a date by which the review should be completed will also be provided. Reviewers can respond to the invite either by clicking on the relevant link in the email or by logging in to their Reviewer role on the SAJPH website, where they will see that they have a pending New Reviewer Invitation. Reviewers who accept the invite to review can access the full text article, by logging into Editorial Manager or via the link to the reviewers’ ‘pending assignments’ found in the automated acknowledgement email (received in response to the their acceptance to review). The article will be blinded and in PDF format. Once completed, reviewers will submit their review and recommendation on the website.

Performing/submitting a review

As a reviewer, you will be advising the editors who will make the final decision on a manuscript. The reviewer should provide feedback on all components of the article, including the methodology, results and discussion. The review should conclude with a recommendation: accept, accept with minor revisions, major revisions needed, or reject. Please refer to the Reviewer Guidelines which provides further guidance on completing reviews.

A tutorial on how to complete your review on Editorial Manager can be found here.

To complete a review:

Login to the SAJPH/SHS Editorial Manager website in the Reviewer role.
Ensure that you have accepted to perform the review (outlined above). Manuscripts that you have accepted to review will be located in your 'Pending Assignments' folder.
Click on 'View Submission' to access the PDF version of the manuscript.
Reviewer Guidelines can be viewed by clicking 'Submit Recommendation'. They can also be accessed here: Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewers can record their comments in a separate Word file or the original PDF (if they have the necessary Adobe software) that they can upload on the 'Submit Recommendation' page or complete the reviewer questions on the aforementioned webpage.
All reviewers are required to complete three questions on the 'Submit Recommendation' webpage in order to submit their recommendation. Once reviewers have completed and submitted their reviews and recommendation, they can inform the handling editor by clicking 'Send Email'. An acknowledgement email will also be received by the reviewer once the review has been successfully processed on the website.

Should reviewers require additional time to review or further assistance, please contact the editorial office: publishing@samedical.org

Publication Frequency

Southern African Journal of PUblich Health incorporating Strengthening Health Systems is published quarterly.

Open Access Policy

Southern African Journal of Public Health incorporating Strengthening Health Systems incorporating is an Open Access Journal and 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. In accordance with the definition of the Budapest Open Access Initiative all content published by the SAJPH/SHS is made free to users without any subscription or other charges. Users are permitted to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full text of these articles, or use them for any other lawful, non-commercial purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author.

Archiving

This journal utilises the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

Comments Policy

The posting of comments to published articles requires registration with this journal website. Only constructive comments that relate to the published material will be permitted. Posted comments solely represent the opinions of the respective user and not those of the SAJPH/SHS, and do not imply endorsement by the SAJPH/SHS. The SAJPH/SHS reserves the right to remove comments without notice that are abusive, threatening, defamatory, contain advertising or spam, or violate another user’s privacy. The SAJPH/SHS reserves the right to revoke the privileges of users that post inappropriate material. Such material may be brought to the attention of the publisher (publishing@samedical.org). The SAJPH/SHS reserves the right to modify this policy without notice.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism policy

A definition of plagiarism is included in the Guidelines to Authors and authors are referred to this policy for the consequences of an offence of this nature. All cases of suspected or alleged plagiarism will be considered seriously and on an individual basis.

(Definition of plagiarism: Plagiarism is when you use someone else’s work (book, article, website, etc.) or idea without acknowledging them as the source, whether it be copied verbatim or paraphrased.

Self plagiarism is the re-use of one’s previously published work without citing the original publication.

Manuscripts submitted online will be screened for potential plagiarism before peer review using similarity detection software. All cases of suspected or alleged plagiarism are considered very seriously in accordance with each journal’s Plagiarism Policy.)

All manuscripts submitted for consideration for publication will be scanned for potential plagiarism using iThenticate before undergoing peer review to verify their originality. Similarity reports will be reviewed individually.

Submitted manuscripts

Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript can be brought to the attention of the journal editor either through the similarity report of the plagiarism detection scan or through a reviewer of the manuscript.
When a similarity report is indicative of potential plagiarism, the report and manuscript will be examined by the journal editor to determine whether or not material has been plagiarised and, if so, the extent of the plagiarism. When plagiarism is supected, the journal editor will contact the author(s), showing evidence either from iThenticate similarity checks or from a reviewer.
If material has been plagiarised, the corresponding author will be informed by the journal editor that the manuscript is rejected on these grounds.
If the extent of the plagiarism is minor and journal editor determines that the author/s did not intend to plagiarise, no further action will be taken. If the plagiarism is extensive or admitted to, the author/s’ institution/s and funding bodies will be informed of the offence (the submitted and plagiarised material will be sent to them) by the journal editor. Authors will be notified that their institution/s will be informed and that they will be banned from submitting to the (enter journal name here) in the future.
The reader or reviewer reporting the suspected plagiarism will be informed of the outcome of the investigation.

Published articles

When suspected plagiarism is reported to the Editorial Office, the report will be acknowledged and all relevant documentation/evidence will be retrieved and examined by the journal editor to determine whether or not material has been plagiarised and, if so, the extent of the plagiarism.
If material has been plagiarised, the corresponding author will be informed by the journal editor and questioned.
If the extent of the plagiarism is minor and the journal editor determines that the author/s did not intend to plagiarise, a statement indicating the plagiarised material and appropriate reference will be published online and the article online will be linked to the statement and vice versa.
If the plagiarism is extensive or admitted to, the article will be retracted (see Article Retraction Policy) and a statement published acknowledging the original author/s.
The author/s’ institution/s and funding bodies will be informed of the offence (submitted and plagiarised material will be sent to them) by the journal editor. Authors will be notified that the relevant institution/s will be informed and that they will be banned from submitting to the (enter journal here) in the future.
The original author/s and publisher will also be informed of the offence.
The reader or Reviewer reporting the suspected plagiarism will be informed of the outcome of the investigation.

Article retraction policy

Published articles should remain extant and intact. However, under exceptional circumstances involving plagiarism (see Plagiarism Policy) and redundant publication or data error, articles may need to be retracted, removed or replaced in order to protect the integrity of the literature. The need for a retraction will be determined by the journal editor, but may be initiated, in cases of flawed data or conclusions, at the request of the author/s.

To retract an article, a notice of retraction will be published in the next issue. This notice of retraction will:

include the title and authors of the article, the reason for the retraction and who is retracting the article
be linked to the article online.

Publication fees

No charges apply upon article submission. Similarly, no charges apply upon publication (article processing charges).

Additional services are available to prospective authors, including: protocol reviews; writing support; and full submission-to-publication support. Click here for further information.

Licensing Information

The SAJPH/SHS is published under an Attribution-Non Commercial International Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. Under this license, authors agree to make articles available to users, without permission or fees, for any lawful, non-commercial purpose. Users may read, copy, or re-use published content as long as the author and original place of publication are properly cited.

Publishing Rights

Authors grant the Publisher the exclusive right to publish, display, reproduce and/or distribute the Work in print and electronic format and in any medium known or hereafter developed, including for commercial use. The Author also agrees that the Publisher may retain in print or electronic format more than one copy of the Work for the purpose of preservation, security and back-up.

Authors are required to complete and sign an Author Agreement form that outlines Author and Publisher rights and terms of publication. The Agreement form should be uploaded along with other submissions files and any submission will be considered incomplete without it. In undertaking this agreement, the Author represents, and warrants, either as the sole author or on behalf of the co-authors, that the Work is their own work and that the Author has the authority to enter into the Author-Publisher Agreement.

Policy on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent for publications

Conflict of Interest Policy: The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) states in its Guidelines on Good Publication Practice (2003) that: ‘Conflicts of interest arise when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests that are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgments on what is published. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.’ Authors may have potential conflicts of interest, that could have an effect on or could be seen to have an effect on their research and publication. A potential conflicting interest might arise from relationships, allegiances or hostilities to particular groups, organizations or interests, which may have an influence on one’s judgments or actions. The issue is particularly sensitive when such interests are private and/or may result in personal gain. Articles submitted to this Journal will be evaluated fairly and will not necessarily be rejected when any competing interests are declared. Examples of conflicts of interest might include the following, although it is not an exhaustive list: (a) Having received fees for consulting; (b) Having received research funding; (c) Having been employed by a related company; (d) Holding stocks or shares in a company which might be affected by the publication of your paper; (e) Having received funds reimbursing you for attending a related symposia, or talk. If there are other interests which the reasonable reader might feel has affected your research you may also wish to declare them. *Please note that it is not expected that details of financial arrangements be disclosed when a competing interest is declared.

Author obligations regarding conflicting interests: In your Publishing Contributor Agreement you will be asked to certify that: (a) Any commercial or financial involvements that might present an appearance of a conflict of interest related to the Contribution are disclosed in a covering letter accompanying the Contribution (b) All forms of financial support, including pharmaceutical company support, are acknowledged in your Contribution. (c) you have not signed an agreement with any sponsor of the research reported in the Contribution that prevents you from publishing both positive and negative results or that forbids you from publishing this research without the prior approval of the sponsor.

Making a declaration: When you are submitting your article, please include such a declaration at the end of your manuscript after any Acknowledgements and prior to the Funding Acknowledgement, Notes (if relevant) and References, under the heading 'Declaration of Conflicting Interest'. If no conflict exists, please state that: 'The Author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest' and all authors of the article have no relationship with any sponsoring organization and the for-profit interests the organization represents, and with any for-profit product discussed or implied in the text of the article.

For more Information, please view the Guidelines published on good publication and the Code of Conduct by The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE); the guidelines published by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and a Common Standard for Conflict of Interest Disclosure published by Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Policy on Human and Animal Rights: When reporting experiments on people, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national), or if no formal ethics committee or institutional review board is available, with the Helsinki Declaration (as revised in 2013).

Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees. Informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Patient consent should be written as dictated by local regulations or laws. Authors must provide a written statement that attests that they have received and archived written patient consent. Nonessential identifying details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are de-identified, authors should provide assurance, e, that such changes do not distort scientific meaning.

When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed. Further guidance on animal research ethics is available from the International Association of Veterinary Editors’ Consensus Author Guidelines on Animal Ethics and Welfare .

Policy on Informed consent for Publications: Patients and research participants have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information, including patients' names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that a patient who is identifiable be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should identify Individuals who provide writing assistance and disclose the funding source for this assistance.

Identifying details should be omitted if they are not essential. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve, however, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning and editors should so note.

Data sharing Policy

SAJPH is committed to a more open research landscape, enabling faster and more effective research discovery by enabling reproducibility and verification of data, methodology and reporting standards. Authors of articles published in our journals are encouraged to share their research data including, but not limited to: raw data, processed data, software, algorithms, protocols, methods, materials. Below is a list of standard templates for the text that should appear in the "Data Availability Statement" portion of your article.

Availability of data	Template for data availability statement
Data openly available in a public repository that issues datasets with DOIs	The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in [repository name] at http://doi.org/[doi], reference number [reference number].
Data openly available in a public repository that does not issue DOIs	The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in [repository name] at [URL], reference number [reference number].
Data derived from public domain resources	The data that support the findings of this study are available in [repository name] at [URL/DOI], reference number [reference number]. These data were derived from the following resources available in the public domain: [list resources and URLs]
Embargo on data due to commercial restrictions	The data that support the findings will be available in [repository name] at [URL / DOI link] following an embargo from the date of publication to allow for commercialization of research findings.
Data available on request due to privacy/ethical restrictions	The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
Data subject to third party restrictions	The data that support the findings of this study are available from [third party]. Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for this study. Data are available [from the authors / at URL] with the permission of [third party].
Data available on request from the authors	The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Data sharing not applicable – no new data generated	Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
Author elects to not share data	Research data are not shared.
Data available in article supplementary material	The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the supplementary material of this article
Data sharing not applicable – no new data generated, or the article describes entirely theoretical research	Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study

Publication ethics and Malpratice Statement

The journal aims to be fully consistent with the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice Guidelines and the COPE Code of Conduct. More details can be found here: https://publicationethics.org