These guidelines are intended to support reviewers in assessing whether submitted manuscripts are suitable for publication and to help ensure an efficient, constructive peer review process. Reviewers may provide comments both to the authors and the editors, as well as confidential comments intended for the editors only.

Manuscripts submitted to the Original Articles section are reviewed anonymously. Where technically possible, manuscripts are sent to reviewers with all information identifying the authors removed. Unless they indicate otherwise, reviewers remain anonymous to the authors.

Reviewers must decline an invitation to review if they feel unable to assess the manuscript objectively or if there is any conflict of interest related to the presumed authors, the research, or the subject matter of the manuscript.

Reviewers should aim to provide objective comments supported by professional reasoning and evidence. Their views on a particular issue or research topic may naturally differ from those of the authors; however, such views should, where possible, be supported by scientific evidence. This helps ensure that differing opinions are presented constructively and contributes to improving the scientific quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers may request citation of their own work only where this is clearly justified on professional grounds. Reviews should be objective, helpful to the authors, and phrased in a respectful manner. Reviewers are also expected to make every effort to meet the review deadline.

All manuscripts submitted for review are confidential. Neither the manuscript nor its contents may be shared with any third party without permission. If the involvement of a third party appears necessary, this must be discussed in advance with the responsible editor, who may grant permission where appropriate.

Reviewers may not make copies of the manuscript or any part of it for their own use. Artificial intelligence-based tools may be used in preparing a review only in ways that do not compromise the confidentiality of manuscripts, reviews, or editorial decision-making materials. Further details are provided in the journal’s Statement on the Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Technologies.

Before preparing their review, reviewers are required to declare that they have no bias, interest, or conflict of interest in relation to the subject, results, or conclusions of the manuscript that could influence their assessment.

If reviewers suspect plagiarism or any other form of ethical misconduct, they must notify the editorial office without delay. In matters concerning the ethical aspects of peer review, the journal follows the relevant COPE guidelines.

Before preparing a review, reviewers are encouraged to consult the journal’s Guidelines for Authors. As a general standard, manuscripts should comply with the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. Reviews should be completed using the review form appropriate to the manuscript type. These criteria are also available to authors in the Guidelines for Authors, as well as below and on the online review platform.

 

 

Peer Review Criteria

Review Criteria for Research Articles

Does the manuscript fall within the aims and scope of the journal? (Is the topic timely and relevant to the journal’s readership, taking into account the Hungarian and international literature, as well as current health promotion objectives, challenges, and practice in Hungary?)

Does the manuscript fit the section selected by the author? (Does it report the results of the author’s own study that has not been published elsewhere?)

Can translation, duplicate publication, or text recycling be ruled out?

Is the aim of the manuscript clearly stated? Does the manuscript explain the significance of the topic and refer to relevant previous work?

Is the methodology described in sufficient detail to allow the study to be replicated? (Does the manuscript clearly describe how the data were generated, including data sources, sampling methods, or the questionnaire used? Are the analytical methods described in sufficient detail?)

Are the data collection and analytical methods appropriate for the subject of the study? (Are the data and selected analytical procedures suitable for addressing the aim of the analysis?)

Are the results and conclusions presented appropriately? (Does the author discuss the limitations of the study? Are the findings compared with previously published results? Are the study results clearly distinguished from the author’s conclusions? Are the conclusions supported by the results? Are they linked to the stated aims of the manuscript?)

Are the references appropriate? (Does the manuscript cite the key literature relevant to the topic? Are there any references that are unrelated to the subject matter?)

Are the figures and tables appropriate? (Do they have clear and professionally appropriate labels and captions? Can they be understood independently, together with their captions?)

 

Review Criteria for Review Articles

Does the manuscript fall within the aims and scope of the journal? (Is the topic timely and relevant to the journal’s readership, taking into account the Hungarian and international literature, as well as current health promotion objectives, challenges and practice in Hungary?)

Does the manuscript fit the section selected by the author?

Can translation, duplicate publication or text recycling be ruled out?

Is the aim of the manuscript clearly stated? (Does the manuscript explain the significance of the topic and refer to relevant previous work?)

Is the methodology used in the review adequately documented? Based on the information provided, can the search be checked and, where appropriate, replicated by other researchers? (Does the manuscript state which sources were searched and how, what criteria were used to select the articles included in the review, and how those articles were evaluated?)

Are the search and evaluation methods appropriate for the topic? (Has the author selected appropriate sources, keywords, time frame and evaluation methods? Has the author identified the key articles relevant to the topic?)

Are the findings of the review and the conclusions drawn from them presented appropriately? (Are the findings clearly distinguished from the author’s conclusions? Are the conclusions supported by the findings? Are the conclusions linked to the aims of the manuscript?)

Are the figures and tables included in the manuscript appropriate? (Do they have clear and professionally appropriate labels and captions? Can they be understood independently, together with their captions?)

 

Review Criteria for Agora Articles

Does the manuscript fall within the aims and scope of the journal? (Is the topic timely and relevant to the journal’s readership, taking into account the Hungarian and international literature, as well as current health promotion objectives, challenges, and practice in Hungary?)

Does the manuscript fit the section selected by the author?

Can translation, duplicate publication, or text recycling be ruled out?

Is the aim of the manuscript clearly stated? (Does the manuscript explain the significance of the topic and refer to relevant previous work?)

Does the author present their position on the chosen topic clearly and appropriately? (Does the manuscript address the key features of the topic? Is the author’s opinion clear? Is it supported by adequate reasoning? Does the author present similar or differing views that are well known in the field?)

Are the figures and tables appropriate? (Do they have clear and professionally appropriate labels and captions? Can they be understood independently, together with their captions?)

 

Statistical Review Criteria

Is the aim of the research clearly defined? Is it clear what new information the research seeks to obtain?

Is the study design appropriate for the research aim? (In other words, would the study, under ideal circumstances, be capable of answering the research question?)

Are the data collection procedure and statistical methodology described in sufficient detail to allow the analysis to be replicated? (Does the manuscript clearly describe how the data were generated, including data sources, sampling methods, or the questionnaire used? If a less commonly used method is applied, is a relevant literature reference provided?)

Are the data and data collection procedure appropriate for the subject of the study? (Do the data adequately represent the study population in relation to the stated aim of the analysis?)

Is the analytical methodology appropriate for the subject of the study and the data? (Are the selected indicators and analytical procedures suitable for achieving the aim of the analysis? Were the assumptions and conditions required for the chosen analytical procedure met?)

Are the results of the analysis presented appropriately? (In addition to point estimates, does the author report measures of uncertainty? Where statistical tests are used, does the author provide the p-value and other relevant test statistics, such as the t-value, F-value, or other applicable values?)

Are the figures and tables appropriate? (Do they have clear and statistically appropriate labels and captions? Can they be understood independently, together with their captions?)

Does the author interpret the results appropriately and draw conclusions that are supported by the analysis? (Does the author discuss the limitations of the analysis, such as a small sample size or a non-representative sample?)