Peer review is fundamental to the publication process and the dissemination of science, policy, and analytic assessments. Peer reviewers are experts in the field, chosen by editors to provide a written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal. Peer reviewers selected for the DJPH are required to meet at least minimum standards regarding their background in original research, publication of articles, formal training, and previous critical appraisal of manuscripts. Peer reviewers should be experts in the scientific question, policy, or analytical topic addressed in the articles they review, and should be selected for their objectivity and overall knowledge.
Single blind review
The DJPH employs single blind review.. In our process the reviewers remain anonymous from the authors of the article. We believe this supports more impartial decisions on the part of the reviewers. In the event of significant grammar or spelling errors, missing charts or graphs, or lack of proper citations, the copy editor will follow up with the primary author with suggestions to revise and resubmit. When an article is rejected without recourse to resubmit, we offer to provide feedback. Again, that feedback comes from the copy editor and the reviewer’s identify is protected.
For a deeper understanding of the types of peer review, we refer you to the McGill University Library (Canada) : https://libraryguides.mcgill.ca/journalpublishing/typesofreview
Process
When peer reviewers are selected to review an article, they receive an email invitation to review that specific article asking that they either accept or decline after viewing the article’s abstract. If the invitation is accepted, a follow-up email is sent providing a direct link to the article to be reviewed.
Peer reviewers who have not registered with Editorial Manager previously will be asked to register when clicking on the link provided in the email. If the invitation is declined or neither link is clicked, the reviewer will be removed from the request queue for this article, and the next selected peer reviewer will be sent an invitation.
Once the reviewer accesses the article, they review the manuscript and then submit their decision recommendation, comments for the author, and confidential comments for the editor. The decision recommendation is selected from a drop-down menu; comments can be entered directly into the fields provided or uploaded as an attachment by clicking the “Upload Attachment” button. Reviewers have access to an archive of their past papers and performance.
Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. The desired major elements of a high-quality review are as follows:
- The reviewer has identified and commented on major strengths and weaknesses of study design and methodology.
- The reviewer has commented accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author’s interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.
- The reviewer has commented on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
- The reviewer has commented on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct.
- The reviewer has provided the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.
- The reviewer has evaluated the submission on its scientific, policy, or analytic value and the robustness of its conclusions, independently of his/her personal opinion on the issue.
- The review has provided the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.
Confidentiality
A submitted manuscript is a privileged communication; reviewers must treat it as confidential. It should not be retained or copied. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers and editors must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication unless they have the authors’ specific permission or are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article.