Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Journal will produce evidence-based and thoughtful discussion related to Christian approaches to global health care and promotion throughout the world.  The broad scope of the journal will allow input on various aspects of Global Health and facilitate broad based learning and sharing within an academic framework.  Topics will include:

  • Community and Public Health (Health Promotion/Prevention, Nutrition and Food Security, Maternal and Child Health, Community Development)
  • Health Care Services (Primary Health Care, Surgical Service, Disaster and Emergency, Rehabilitative services, Mental Health, Palliative Care)
  • Organization (Administration and Finance, Policy and Advocacy, Workforce)
  • Mission and Health (Theology, Evangelism, Community Transformation)
  • Conditions of Special Interest (HIV/AIDS, Non-Communicable Disease, Neglected Tropical Diseases)

 The Journal  will provide a variety of articles including:

  • Original Research
  • Commentaries
  • Review Articles
  • Editorials
  • Case studies
  • Case Reports
  • Study Design Articles
  • Short Communications/Field Reports
  • Current Debates
  • Opinion Pieces
  • Training Materials and Tools
  • Book Reviews
  • Journal Article Reviews
  • Conference Summaries
  • Poetry
  • Art



Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Review Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Original Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Studies

Program or institutional descriptions with outcomes and associations

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Reports

Individual patient reports, with written permission granted unless explanation provided.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Short Communications / Field Reports

Narrratives from the field with a major teaching point or inspiring motivation.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Current Debates

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Study Design

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Capacity Building

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Book Reviews

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Journal Reviews

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Conference Reports

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Opinion Piece

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Letters to the Editor

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Art Work

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Unbiased, independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all scholarly work, including scientific investigation. The peer reviewers are experts in their field and thus are an important extension of the scholarly process.

Peer review of submissions and editing will be carried out by section editors and selected reviewers prior to publication. The purpose of this review is to assure that submissions meet the rigorous scientific, ethical and theological standards of the Journal. The peer review process entails the following:

1. The Author submits the manuscript electronically according to Author Guidelines.

2. The Journal editors shall determine if the articles are within the scope of, and appropriate for consideration by, the Journal.

3. All submissions that require peer review shall be sent out for review electronically to section editors and reviewers with expertise in the appropriate field.

4. All submissions shall be reviewed by at least two independent referees in a timely fashion.

5. Identity of the referee and author shall not normally be disclosed to either party, except at the discretion of the Editor. Such “double blind” review eliminates bias against less-known authors and bias in favor of well-known authors.

6. Standard review criteria will be applied in the review process.

7. The two referees shall electronically submit their views to the Editor. If they lack consensus, a third referee may be involved.

8. The peer review process will conclude in one of the following categories:

  •  Accept submission without changes
  •  Minor revisions with a view to accept if the revisions are appropriate and within a stipulated time.
  •  Recommend major revisions with an option to resubmit for another review round (within a stipulated time)
  •  Reject submission – either because it fails to meet standards, or if it is better suited to another journal

The Editors make the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection taking into account reviewers’ recommendations. We aim to issue a final decision on all articles within 12 weeks of submission.

 The author can submit an appeal to the Editors if they feel their submission was not been dealt with fairly.  A group from the editorial board will consider such appeals.

 The article processing charge is collected once the decision to accept for publication is rendered.


Publication Frequency

Journal items can be published collectively semi-annually, as part of an issue with its own Table of Contents. Alternatively, individual items can be published as soon as they are ready, by adding them to the "current" volume's Table of Contents.


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.  This in-turn leads to healthier lives for those around the world.

We believe that authors should retain copyright to the article they have worked so hard to produce. This is an Open Access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author.

Authors are also free to make derivative works (alter, transform, or build upon), but the derivative work must be attributed to the author and to the Christian Journal for Global Health.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.



This journal utilizes 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...

Articles are currently being processed to be archived in full text XML with PubMedCentral


Information for Advertisers

The Christian Journal for Global Health is non-profit journal that provides research and reflection on Christian health policy and practice worldwide. 

The Journal attracts attention and followers by global health practitioners, policy makers, and researchers across the globe.   It is one of the only resources for quality, scholarly research and peer reviewed publication on Christian perspectives and approaches in global health.  

Therefore, advertising is encouraged to reach a diverse and extensive base.   Advertising is available in right side block on every CJGH journal page.  

Please contact info@cjgh.org if you are interested in advertising with the Journal, and note “advertising” in the subject line.

Please note:

The journal must remain independent of commercial interests which can influence editorial objectivity.  

In addition, the Journal is an independently owned journal, published by the Center for Health in Mission (www.centerforhim).  Advertising will be reviewed for compatibility with the ethos of the journal and its publisher.   

We reserve the right to refuse advertising from any business or organization whose activities we believe are inconsistent with the mission of the Christian Journal for Global Health.


Information for Reviewers

What to consider when asked to PEER REVIEW an article

Make sure the article you have been asked to review truly matches your expertise.  Only accept an invitation if you are competent to review the article. 

Understand what it means to accept, to review, and to manage deadlines.

The editors will provide information on deadline expectations with the review request. Please let them know within a day or two that you received the request, if you are able to complete the review, and if the timeframe is suitable.

Do not disclose the article to others.

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents and should not be shown to, or discussed with, others. If an opinion of a colleague seems desirable then this is welcome, but the editor must be informed. 

Reviewer identity is not shared with the author.

To help us protect your identity, please do not reveal your name within the text of your review. You should not attempt to contact the author.

Writing the review

The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision. It should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision. This is secondary to the other functions, however, and referees should not feel obliged to provide detailed advice to authors of papers that do not meet the criteria for The Christian Journal for Global Health.

Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but it is helpful if the main points are stated in the comments for transmission to the authors. The ideal review should answer the following questions:

  • What are the major claims of the paper?
  • Are the claims novel? If not, please identify the major papers that compromise novelty
  • Will the paper be of interest to others in the field?
  • Will the paper influence thinking in the field?
  • Are the claims convincing? If not, what further evidence is needed?
  • Are there other experiments that would strengthen the paper further? How much would they improve it, and how difficult are they likely to be?
  • Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
  • If the manuscript is unacceptable in its present form, does the study seem sufficiently promising that the authors should be encouraged to consider a resubmission in the future?

Other questions for referees to consider

For manuscripts that may merit further consideration, it is also helpful if referees can advise on the following points:

  • Is the manuscript clearly written? If not, how could it be made more accessible?
  • Could the manuscript be shortened to aid communication of the most important findings?
  • Have the authors done themselves justice without overselling their claims?
  • Have they been fair in their treatment of previous literature?
  • Have they provided sufficient methodological detail that the experiments could be reproduced?
  • Is the statistical analysis of the data sound?
  • Should the authors be asked to provide further data or methodological information to help others replicate their work?
  • Are there any special ethical concerns arising from the use of animals or human subjects?


Important resources and guidelines for peer reviewers can be found through the EQUATOR network and the COPE Ethical Guidelines.  Another excellent resource is NUTS AND BOLTS OF PEER REVIEW.  





Authorship, Support & Conflict of Interest

Authorship credit should be based only on: (1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published. See How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers 

Contributors and financial support sources should be acknowledged in the article, even if they do not meet the criteria for authorship. 

Declaration of conflicting interests on any competing financial, copywright or other interest in relation to their paper, in accordance with the ICMJE unified disclosure form. All declared competing interests, or a statement indicating that there are no competing interests if appropriate, will be listed at the end of published articles.

A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients’ welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain). Perceptions of conflict of interest are as important as actual conflicts of interest. 

Reviewers and editors will recuse themselves of any involvement in the editorial process if they have any conflicts of interest.  Authors will declare conflicts of interest, along with sources of support for the work. 


Research on Human and Animal Subjects

Ehical principles on research with human subjects follows the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association

Patients 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.

When informed consent has been obtained, it should be indicated in the published article. 

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


Author Complaint

Any complaint against the editors or reviewers regarding fair publication decision-making shall be received by the Manging Editor by e-mail correspondence, and referred to a panel of three from the Editorial Board for deliberation.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Creative Commons License