|
Manuscript submission
When a manuscript is received, an associate editor is appointed
as an internal reviewer to decide on its suitability for peer
review. If the manuscript is judged to be unsuitable for peer
review, the editor will make a decision at this point to notify
the author(s). Two suitably qualified professionals will externally
review manuscripts, which are accepted for peer review. Authors
whose submissions are accepted for external peer review will be
notified of the outcome of reviews as soon as they are completed.
The peer review process usually takes about 4 to 6 weeks from
submission to final editing.
Contributions of a specific nature, which do not involve research
(eg, editorials, conference and media reviews), are accepted without
peer review. In this case, an associate editor will assess the
suitability of those submissions before making recommendations
to accept, revise or decline the submission.
Ethics of manuscript handling and external peer review
When manuscripts are circulated for external peer review, author
details are not disclosed to reviewers, and equally, details of
external reviewers are not disclosed to authors. Peer reviewers
who have participated in the journal's peer review process, will
be acknowledged annually by name, on the journal's website. Manuscripts
to which peer reviewers have been assigned, will remain confidential.
Conflict of Interest
Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of
published articles depend in part on how well conflict of interest
is handled during writing, peer review, and editorial decision
making.
Every manuscript submitted to JEPHC will be assessed without
bias. The editor will not participate in the assessment of any
manuscript with which he/she has any conflict of interest.
Manuscripts which are received by the editor for publication
in JEPHC; with respect to the following conditions, will be deemed
as a conflict of interest:
· Any author who works at the Monash University
Department of Commumity Emergency Health and Paramedic Practice.
· Any author who collaborates with the editor (past or
present) in a professional capacity.
· Any author who is personally known to the editor.
· Any author who provides consultancy services to the editor
(and vice versa).
Where a conflict of interest is present, the process of internal
editorial evaluation will instead be given to an independent associate
editor. All editorial decisions relating to peer reviewer selection
and acceptance of rejection of the manuscript, will be undertaken
by the designated associate editor.
Confidentiality
In consideration of confidentiality and privacy, reviewers are
asked to give priority to the following points:
All copies of manuscripts held by the peer reviewer, must be
destroyed upon completion of the review.
Peer reviewers are requested not to discuss or disclose with
any person, the content of manuscripts to which they have been
assigned. If external assistance is required with the review,
the editor should be notified prior to seeking assistance.
Peer reviewers are requested to disclose to the editor, any conflict
of interest, which may influence objective assessment of a manuscript.
This includes shared or competing interests in current research
to which the peer reviewer has knowledge of the author by personal
means or through other sources.
The Review Process
Peer reviewers are provided with an assessment form to record
details and comments relating to the manuscript. Peer reviewers
are required to evaluate the manuscript critically but constructively
and to provide valid and informative comments to authors, which
will facilitate improvement in their work.
The manuscript should be assessed for:
· Presence of a brief summary of the manuscript
· Originality and synthesis
· Significance and interest
· Technical and scientific soundness
· Quality of presentation
In making an assessment, reviewers should consider the following:
Synthesis
Does the manuscript have an organized structure?
Is there presence of a well-reasoned argument?
Does the structure of the manuscript reflect the title, abstract,
introduction and conclusion?
Is the writing easy to follow, informative and interesting?
Measure of content
Could the manuscript or any part of it be extended, condensed,
combined or deleted?
Methods
Are the methods used appropriate for the study?
Data and Presentation
Are the stated results verifiable from tables, figures etc.
and if so, are they clearly identifiable and appropriate?
Design and Analysis
Is the design and analysis appropriate and correct?
Are measurements and observations clearly isolated and identifiable?
Are significant statements justified?
Errors
Are there any errors in fact, technique, calculation, interpretation
or style?
Are all cited statements correctly referenced according to Author
Guidelines?
Does the manuscript demonstrate adequate research of existing
literature in support of the topic?
Overlap
Are the findings of the manuscript already published?
Conclusion
Does the manuscript contain information in the conclusion, which
is not covered in the body of the manuscript?
Does the conclusion summarise the scope and findings of the
manuscript?
It is important to complete the review promptly and notify the
editor as soon as possible if an extension of time is required
to complete the evaluation.
Peer review decision
Manuscripts, which are sent out for external peer review, are
often referred back to authors for revision. This is not a criticism
of the manuscript, but a request to present and clarify information
in a format that will deliver the best possible structure of information
to the reader.
Authors should give priority to decisions that may involve changes
to the manuscript, and understand that the journal requires a
quick response regarding the author(s) intention to revise the
manuscript.
A copy of the revised version should be returned to the editorial
office as advised, highlighting areas where changes have been
made. Detailed responses to reviewers' comments, in a covering
letter, are necessary too.
Upon receipt of the revised manuscript, the associate editor
who initiated the external review will decide whether manuscript
revisions have been met according to the advice of peer reviewers.
On occasions it may be necessary for the editor to return the
manuscript to reviewers for further assessment, before accepting
the manuscript for final editing.
No manuscript will be reconsidered for publication if it has
not been revised in accordance with most of the peer reviewers'
comments.
All rejected manuscripts will be destroyed.
Appeals
It is the policy of the journal to deal with appeals of decision
in a fair and objective manner.
If an appeal is made by an author to reconsider further review
of a rejected manuscript, the editor will assess the grounds on
which the appeal has been made. The editor reserves the right
to decide the outcome of appeal.
In the event of a manuscript being resubmitted for peer review,
the editor will select at least one of the original peer reviewers,
and one or two peer reviewers who have not previously assessed
the manuscript.
Our editorial staff will endeavour to provide authors and reviewers
with advice or technical assistance that may be required to support
the successful publication of manuscripts. Please contact Editorial_Assistant@jephc.com
for further information.
Information contained in the reviewer guidelines has been
created in accordance with the World
Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and the International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
Additional Resources
Developed by editors for Annals of Emergency Medicine,
'An Instructional Guide for Peer Reviewers of Biomedical
Manuscripts' is a web based resource, designed to orient
and educate peer reviewers on how to perform their tasks.
Content is based on a series of lectures, a sample manuscript
for review, sample reviews, and supplementary web resources.
Access to the guide is free for non-commercial use and contains
no commercial or advertising material.
http://www3.us.elsevierhealth.com/extractor/graphics/em-acep/index.html
|
