

|
|
| |
Excerpted from:
Trisha Greenhalgh, "How to read
a paper: The basics of evidence-based medicine" (1997, BMJ
Publishing Group, p.35).
Most good scientific journals send papers out to a referee
for comments on their scientific validity, originality, and
importance before deciding whether to print them. This process
is known as peer review, and much has been written about it.
Following are common reasons why papers are rejected for
publication by peer-reviewers:
 | the study did not examine an important scientific issue |
 | the study was not original, i.e. someone else has already
done the same or very similar study |
 | the study did not actually test the authors' hypothesis |
 | a different type of study should have been done |
 | practical difficulties (e.g. in recruiting subjects) led
the authors to compromise on the original study protocol |
 | the sample size was too small |
 | the study was uncontrolled or inadequately controlled |
 | the statistical analysis was incorrect or inappropriate |
 | the authors have drawn unjustified conclusions from their
data |
 | there is a considerable conflict of interest (e.g. one of
the authors as a sponsor might benefit financially from the
publication of the paper and insufficient safeguards were
seen to be in place to guard against bias) |
 | the paper is so badly written that it is incomprehensible |
|
|
|

|
|
Excerpted from:
Instructions for Authors (Journal of
Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 2002). Website:
http://www.harcourthealth.com/scripts/om.dll/serve?a=ms&id=jpt0202501ia.
Accessed on Feb 2002.
- Authorship -
- All authors of papers submitted to JMPT must have an
intellectual stake in the material presented for publication. All
must be willing to answer for the content of the work. Authors
should be willing to certify participation in the work, vouch for
its validity, acknowledge reviewing and approving the final
version of the paper, acknowledge that the work has not been
previously published elsewhere, and be able to produce raw data if
requested.
-
- Conflict of Interest -
- In recognition that it may at
times be difficult to judge material from authors where
proprietary interests are concerned, authors should be ready to
answer requests from the editor regarding potential conflicts of
interest. The editor makes the final determination concerning the
extent of information released to the public.
-
- Review process -
- All
manuscripts are subject to blind (without author or institutional
identification) critical review by 2 or more experts in the
related field to assist the editor in determining appropriateness
to JMPT objectives, originality, validity, importance of content,
substantiation of conclusions, publishability, and possible need
for improvement. Reviewers' comments will be returned with
manuscript if rejected or if strong recommendations for
improvement are made.
|
|
|

|
|
Excerpted from:
Instructions for Authors (American Journal
of Public Health). Website: http://www.ajph.org.
Accessed on Feb 2002.
- Authorship and contributorship -
- Listing more than 6 authors
requires justification. The Journal adheres to the criteria of the
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (http://www.icmje.org).
Upon acceptance, all authors must certify that they will take
public responsibility for the content and provide any relevant
data upon request. All authors must also certify that they have
contributed substantially to conception and design or analysis and
interpretation of the data, drafting or revision of content, and
approval of the final version. Individual contributions of each
author must be specified in a single brief statement. Authors also
must confirm that the content has not been published elsewhere and
does not overlap or duplicate their published work. Exceptions are
made for abstracts and reports from scientific meetings. Copyright
is transferred to the American Public Health Association upon
acceptance.C
-
-
Cover letter -
- All authors must sign the letter, with 1 named
correspondent (give postal and e-mail addresses, and telephone and
fax numbers). Disclose all possible conflicts of interest (e.g.,
funding sources for consultancies or studies of products). A brief
indication of the importance of the paper to the field of public
health is helpful in gaining peer review. Authors are encouraged
to suggest up to 6 knowledgeable reviewers, especially in novel
fields (include postal and e-mail addresses and telephone and fax
numbers).
-
- Acknowledgments -
- Prepare acknowledgments on a separate page.
Upon acceptance, the first author will be asked to certify that
all persons who have contributed substantially to the work but who
do not fulfill authorship criteria have been listed, and that
written permission for listing them has been obtained. Also
required is disclosure of all financial and material support. If
human participants are involved, approval by an institutional
review board and their informed consent is required. The Journal
adheres to the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical
Association http://www.wma.net).
-
-
Review, Editing, and Production -
- We acknowledge initial and
revised manuscripts upon receipt. About 60% of submissions are
rejected upon initial screening by the editors, usually within 1
month of receipt. Peer review of the remainder requires about 3
months. The review process is double blind, with authors unaware
of the identities of reviewers and reviewers unaware of the
identities of authors until acceptance. The Journal will publish
about 20% of initial submissions. Scheduling and production
processes take up to 9 months.
|
|
|
|

[ Top of Page ] [ Home
]
|
|