The Columbia University Journal of Global Health (CU JGH) relies on the scientific research community to assess both the validity and scientific merit of articles under consideration and ultimately improve manuscripts deemed suitable for publication. Please accept an invitation only if you have the time, knowledge, and objectivity required to submit an unbiased assessment of the manuscript. If you feel you are not able to review the article, we would sincerely appreciate a recommendation of another qualified reviewer. 

 

By agreeing to review the article, reviewers agree to keep manuscripts and correspondence confidential and to declare any competing interests. We ask reviewers to complete the review within 3 weeks of accepting the invitation. Reviewers may be asked to review a revised version of the manuscript following resubmission by authors.

 

CU JGH follows an anonymous peer review process to facilitate unbiased reviews and to protect the anonymity of reviewers. Reviewers may choose to sign their reviews following publication and receive credit via Publons. Please credit any collaborators in the comments to the editor section and ensure the review comments to be delivered to authors do not contain identifying information.

 

Review Structure and Components

The review comments should include the following bolded sections and reference specific line numbers (if applicable):

• Summary - Explain how the manuscript is original and impactful.
• Major Issues - Note any major areas of concern the authors must address.
1. Major issues include but are not limited to: weak rationale, flawed or incomplete methods, ethical concerns, or incomplete or biased results.
• Minor Issues - Note any issues that could detract from the manuscript’s clarity. Suggest any changes that would improve the manuscript’s quality. Please refrain from suggesting copy edits.

 

Please also provide the Editorial Board with the following confidential information in the comments to the editor:

• Your evaluation of the manuscript’s overall quality and ultimate recommendation for the manuscript.
• Any additional comments you would like to provide.
• If you feel competent to assess the statistical analysis of the manuscript.
• If you feel that the suggestions provided will be sufficient to improve the writing of the manuscript.

 

Criteria for Consideration

The manuscript should fulfill the criteria outlined below for each section (if applicable). Note any specific issues present, and suggest how the authors may improve upon them.

Title - The title should clearly indicate the topic and major findings/conclusion of the article.

Abstract - The abstract should accurately summarize the manuscript and its significant findings.

Methodology - The methodology should be appropriate for the manuscript type, easy to understand, and supported by evidence.

Introduction - The introduction should build a strong and logical rationale with sufficient background information to support the purpose of the manuscript.

Results - The results should be unbiased with no interpretation of the findings in the Results section.

Discussion - The discussion should be thoughtful, thorough, and easily comprehensible.

Conclusion (if applicable) - The conclusion should be consistent with the evidence.

Tables and Figures - All tables and figures should be clear and necessary and should enhance the manuscript.

References - The references should be sufficient, relevant, and correctly formatted.

---

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy

1. Guiding Principles

In line with the principles articulated in the Open Library of Humanities (OLH) policy, our journal recognizes that so-called “AI detection” software is not a reliable method for determining with certainty whether text has been generated by artificial intelligence. Therefore, our editorial decisions will focus on the quality, originality, and scholarly integrity of the work submitted, regardless of whether AI was used.

Our goal is to maintain academic integrity through transparency and rigorous peer review rather than attempting to police AI use through unreliable detection technologies. 

2. Disclosure Requirements

Authors are required to disclose any use of generative AI tools in the preparation of their manuscript. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Text generation or drafting
  
  
• Editing or rewriting
  
  
• Accurate literature summarization
  
  
• Data analysis or code generation
  
  
• Image generation

Disclosure must include:

• The name, model number, and any other identifying features (e.g. “Research Mode”) of the AI tool(s) used
  
  
• The date(s) on which it was used
• The purpose for which it was used
  
  
• The extent of its contribution to the manuscript
  
  

This disclosure should be included in a dedicated “AI Use Statement” within the manuscript at the time of submission. You should be as specific as possible in identifying where exactly in the manuscript AI tool(s) were used. 3-4 sentences that identify all disclosure details are sufficient. Submissions without this documentation will not be considered for publication. Failure to disclose AI use may constitute a breach of publication ethics, leading to the retraction of the manuscript.

3. Editorial Screening

All submissions may be screened for indicators of AI-generated content. However, screening tools will not be used as determinative evidence of misconduct. They may instead serve as one factor among others in the editorial assessment process.

Editors will evaluate submissions based on:

• Original contribution
  
  
• Novelty of original research
  
  
• Accuracy and verifiability of sources

4. Quality and Integrity Standards

The use of AI tools is permitted provided that:

• The author maintains full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the work.
  
  
• AI tools are not listed as authors.
  
  
• All sources are properly verified by the author.
  
  
• The work meets the journal’s scholarly standards independent of any AI assistance.
  
  

If editors believe that AI has been used to an extent that degrades the scholarly quality, originality, or integrity of the submission, the manuscript may:

• Be returned to the author with a request for revision and clarification; or
  
  
• Be rejected if it does not meet the journal’s standards.
  
  

Authors will be given an opportunity to revise where appropriate.

5. Peer Review

Peer review remains the primary mechanism for identifying weaknesses in submissions, whether or not AI tools were used. Reviewers will be instructed to evaluate manuscripts on their scholarly merits and may flag concerns related to coherence, originality, or source reliability.

6. Author Responsibility

Authors remain fully accountable for:

• The content of their submission
  
  
• The accuracy of citations and references
  
  
• Compliance with ethical research standards
  
  
• Proper disclosure of AI use

7. Peer Reviewer Responsibility

Peer reviewers are not expected to detect or investigate the use of artificial intelligence in submitted manuscripts, nor should they rely on AI-detection tools in the review process. While peer reviewers may choose to make limited use of AI tools as part of their review process, they must ensure that the confidentiality of the manuscript is fully protected. Reviewers should not upload, share, or input manuscript content into AI systems that store, reuse, or train on submitted data. Any AI assistance used must be limited to supporting the reviewer’s own analysis (e.g., improving clarity of notes or organizing feedback), and reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and independence of their evaluation. AI tools must not be used to generate substantive review judgments or recommendations on behalf of the reviewer.

Reviewers should evaluate submissions solely on their scholarly merits, prioritizing original contributions to the field. If reviewers identify concerns about writing quality, unsupported claims, fabricated or unverifiable sources, or other issues that may affect the integrity of the work, they should comment on these concerns in their review.

The focus of peer review should remain on strengthening the scholarship and maintaining academic standards, regardless of whether AI tools were used in the preparation of the manuscript.

---

Download a copy of our review guidelines.

Additional help in using the review submission platform may be found here.