Peer review process

We are happy to publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound. Reviews are thus applied for readability, clarity, technical correctness, and appropriate scope and interpretation. We consider that judgments about the importance of a paper are made after publication by the readership who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them. At JPH, we believe that articles should be assessed on their own merits rather than on the basis of the journal in which they were published. Accordingly, we believe that metrics such as the journal Impact Factor are misleading and malicious because they inevitably encourage journals to publish a small number of arbitrarily selected ‘good’ papers. If we are to encourage the use of a metric we believe that metrics such as the H5 factor are more defendable and less pernicious.

Added February 1st, 2017:

We believe at JPH that it is important to make our editorial process as transparent as possible. Therefore, for now on:
- we encourage referees to sign their reports, thereby disclosing their name to the authors at the end of the editorial process or from the beginning of the review process if the referee wishes so. 
- we will publish all referees reports, author's responses to these reviews and the substantive part of the decision letters alongside published articles. Anonymity will be preserved according to referees' preferences. 

Registeresd readers are also kindly invited to comment on the paper and the reviews.