|
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 or 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
|
