Focus and Scope
The Journal of Health Design (JHD) is a peer-reviewed scientific publication. We aim to publish papers describing the development and evaluation of innovations to improve the patient experience of health care. We are especially interested in measures that do not require major Health Policy change. The JHD espouses two motos- Better health by design and small change big difference. Most of our publications tackle challenges with particular reference to the end user of health services. The JHD offers expert opinion and thought leadership and has a global outlook.
Peer Review Process
The Journal of Health Design uses "double blind" peer review, which means the identity of the authors and the reviewers are not disclosed throughout the peer review process.
To ensure anonymity during peer review, please do not include any personal identifying information in your manuscript. For example, do not name the site of your study (e.g., hospital name, clinic name, town where study took place). The reviewers comments will be relayed to authors asap. We require authors to address every comment even if it is to say why you might disagree with a suggestion. Once a revised version of the paper is uploaded we will seek further comments from the reviewers and a senior editor before a final decision is made. Following publication it will not be possible to make changes to the paper. If a retraction is required the authors must submit a reason for the retraction which will be published by the journal.
Publication ethics
The JHD adheres to the highest standards with regard to publication ethics. The journal specifically refers to the the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK), an online resource to support journal editors in handling publishing ethics allegations. Please follow the hyperlink for detailed advice which is summarised below. The policies relate to the following circumstances. Please follow the hyperlinks for the action that the JHD might choose to take in each circumstance:
- Authorship complaints It is important that every author of a contribution be credited as such. It is equally as important that a person not be named as an author when he or she is not.
- Plagiarism complaints Plagiarism is committed when one author uses another work (typically the work of another author) without permission, credit, or acknowledgment. Plagiarism takes different forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another.
- Multiple, duplicate, concurrent publication/simultaneous submission. Articles submitted for publication must be original and must not have been submitted to any other publication. Except in very unusual circumstances (and then only with the agreement of the editor), authors are expected to submit articles that are original and have not been submitted to any other publication. Occasionally, authors may disregard this requirement, submitting the same paper to multiple journals or submitting multiple papers based on the same research. This would constitute a breach of the JHD policy.
- Research results misappropriation. Authorship of research results is generally a verifiable question of fact. If there is any question as to whether research results reported in a submitted article are original to the purported author or authors, the JHD will make inquiries of the authors and/or their institutions. The editor is well positioned to know what research is being carried out at any particular time, at any particular place, and by whom. This knowledge will assist us in directing inquiries to the appropriate individuals and institutions to verify whether a research claim is genuine. In addition, the JHD may want to seek guidance from other specialists in the field of research.
- Allegations of research errors and fraud. Where referees or readers report to the JHD or editor saying that: certain laboratories do not have the facilities to conduct the research they published; the gel images look manipulated; the data from the control experiments is too perfect, etc., then the possibility of fraud needs to be considered. Fraud is publishing data or conclusions that were not generated by experiments or observations, but by data manipulation or invention. Changing the data measurements to conveniently fit the desired end result is fraud, but excluding inconvenient results is deliberate research error, which, in effect, is the same end result – fraud.
- Research standards violations. Research standards violations normally come to light when a referee sees that there was no informed consent on human subjects, or that animal protection protocols were not followed for a piece of research.
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest. Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as "dual commitments", "competing interests", or "competing loyalties").
- Reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers. The JHD will reject reviewers with obvious potential conflicts of interest, for example, those who work in the same department or institution as any of the authors. Authors often provide editors with the names of persons they feel should not be asked to review a manuscript because of potential conflicts of interest, usually professional. Where possible, authors should be asked to explain or justify their concerns - this information is important to editors in deciding whether to honour such requests.
Data sharing policy
- We strongly encourage that data generated by your research that supports your article be made available as soon as possible, wherever legally and ethically possible
- We require data from clinical trials to be made available upon reasonable request
- We require that a data sharing plan must be included with trial registration for clinical trials that begin enrolling participants on or after 1st January 2019. Changes to the plan must be noted in the Data Availability Statement and updated in the registry record (to comply with Statement ICMJE recommendations)
We encourage you to make available as much of the underlying data from your article as possible (without compromising participant privacy), but at least the minimum data required to reproduce the results presented in the associated article.
We consider any files generated by your research as constituting relevant data. This may be raw or processed data. Examples include (but are not limited to):
- Individual-level de-identified patient data
- Survey results
- Interview transcripts
- Statistical code
- Images
- Videos
- Spreadsheets
- Audio files
- Text files
- Imaging and scan files
Publication Frequency
Twice per year
Open Access Policy
This journal 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.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
While the Journal of Health Design (JHD) does not inherently forbid the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in research manuscripts, it imposes expectations on authors to adhere to principles of responsibility, transparency, and specificity in their disclosure of AI utilization. Authors must explicitly acknowledge and elucidate the role of AI in their research within the "Acknowledgements" section of their submission.
Should the JHD editors identify instances where the disclosed use of AI compromises the research's integrity or methodological approach, they retain the right to reject the manuscript. Grounds for rejection may stem from the dissemination of inaccurate AI-generated information or insufficient disclosure of AI usage within the manuscript. Notably, JHD does not recognize generative AI technologies as eligible authors in submissions.
Open Submissions
Peer Reviewed