Public health practice generates essential knowledge every day—often in the form of implementation lessons, system adaptations, and hard‑won insights that don’t always fit neatly into traditional research formats. At the Journal of Public Health Management & Practice (JPHMP), supporting the publication of this real‑world knowledge has long been central to our mission.
To better align our article types with the kinds of contributions practitioners are making—and to reduce confusion for authors, reviewers, and readers—we are making two important updates to our publication model:
- Sunsetting the Brief Report article type, and
- Launching a new article type: Insights from the Field.
These changes reflect how practice‑based work is actually produced and used in public health, and they create a clearer, more supportive pathway for sharing applied insights.
Why Change Was Needed
Historically, Brief Reports were intended to provide a shorter format for practice‑ or research‑based manuscripts. In practice, however, this category often carried expectations that didn’t match the work being submitted. Because Brief Reports were positioned as abbreviated empirical articles, authors frequently felt pressure to frame practice narratives as formal evaluations—even when that wasn’t appropriate or possible.
At the same time, changes in bibliographic indexing policies meant that Brief Reports were increasingly difficult to categorize consistently. This created frustration for authors and additional screening and reclassification work for editors.
Rather than trying to make one format serve competing purposes, we decided to separate them clearly.
What’s New: Insights from the Field
Insights from the Field is a new article type designed specifically for practice‑generated knowledge. These articles are intended to share lessons from implementation, program delivery, systems change, and policy‑informed practice—without positioning the work as formal or generalizable research.
This format recognizes something practitioners already know: not all valuable public health knowledge comes from full evaluations or analytic studies. Sometimes the most useful insights are about how something was done, what was learned along the way, and why those lessons matter for others working in similar contexts.
Key Features of Insights from the Field:
- Short and focused (approximately 800–1,200 words)
- No requirement for a formal evaluation or analytic study design
- Emphasis on context, transparency, and limitations
- A required Implications for Policy & Practice section
- Designed for practitioner relevance and usability
- Not indexed in Medline/PubMed, reflecting its applied purpose
Importantly, Insights from the Field is not a “lighter” or less rigorous category. Instead, it is rigorously aligned with a different goal: helping public health professionals learn from one another’s real‑world experiences.
What This Means for Former Brief Reports
With the introduction of Insights from the Field, JPHMP is discontinuing the Brief Report category. Manuscripts that might previously have been submitted as Brief Reports should now be directed to one of three clearer options:
- Research Reports – Present systematic, methodologically rigorous studies designed to generate generalizable evidence.
- Practice Reports – Describe practice-based work that includes data, evaluation, or analytic components, even when conducted in real-world public health settings.
- Insights from the Field – Focus on lessons learned, implementation experiences, or practice innovations without a formal evaluation component.
This change is intended to reduce misaligned submissions and help authors select the category that best reflects the contribution of their work.
A new approach to peer review for practice articles
Alongside this new article type, JPHMP is piloting a practice‑based peer review model for selected practice‑oriented submissions, including Insights from the Field.
As part of this pilot, reviews place greater emphasis on:
- Practical relevance and usefulness
- Clarity and accessibility for practitioners
- Adequacy of context and transparency
- Ethical considerations and integrity
This approach complements—rather than replaces—editorial oversight and traditional peer review standards. The goal is to ensure that practice‑focused work is reviewed through a lens that matches its purpose.
What Authors Should Do Next
If you are considering submitting to JPHMP, we encourage you to review the updated Information for Authors, which now includes a full description of Insights from the Field and guidance on selecting the appropriate article type.
As a rule of thumb:
- If your manuscript presents evaluated outcomes or formal analysis, a Practice or Research Report is likely the best fit.
- If your manuscript focuses on what you did, what you learned, and what others should know for practice, Insights from the Field may be the right home.
Looking Ahead
These updates are part of JPHMP’s ongoing commitment to elevating practice‑based knowledge and lowering barriers for practitioner authors—while maintaining clarity, integrity, and quality across everything we publish.
We look forward to learning from the field in new ways and invite your feedback as we continue to refine these approaches.
Questions about article types or fit? The editorial team is always happy to help.
Recommended: