Policies and Guidelines

Policies and Guidelines for Peer-reviewers

All manuscripts are double-blind reviewed. Where appropriate, health services research statisticians review papers with statistical content. When the reviews are returned, the editor assigned to the paper reads the paper again and identifies any further modifications needed before the paper can be accepted. Our policy like that of other journals is that the reviewer's role is to advice the editor but it is the latter who makes the final decision. 
Peer reviewers should provide an objective critical evaluation of the paper in the broadest terms practicable. Reviewers need to make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief by deciding on a rank between 1-9, where 1 is well-written and 9 is so flawed that rejection is recommended. 
You should also indicate if the manuscript requires its English grammar, punctuation or spelling to be corrected (there is a prompt for this). 
Your report must contain a recommendation and a description of your reasons for that recommendation. If you believe the paper needs changes to be made before it is acceptable, please make suggestions on how to improve the paper. Likewise if you feel that a paper is not good enough and has no real prospects of being improved sufficiently to be published you should recommend rejection. 
Consideration should be given to whether the paper is suitable for the journal it is submitted to. Each journals' aims and scope is available on the left of its home page. 
We request that you provide your input via website? The invitation sent to you provides a date, about a weak, when we require to have received your comments. 
Conflicts of interest 
You may not undertake a peer review on a submission if you are unable to do so objectively.

View: 5227 Time(s)   |   Print: 500 Time(s)   |   Email: 0 Time(s)   |   0 Comment(s)

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb