For peer reviewers

Public Health Research & Practice would not be able to operate without the generosity and intellectual input of peer reviewers, who are critical to our operation.

What we ask of you

Our peer reviewers are asked to log in to the journal management system ScholarOne to complete their review. Here, you will complete a short survey on the manuscript and include freetext comments to the authors and editor about the manuscript.

We also ask reviewers to complete a conflict of interest declaration as part of this process.

Our Guidelines for reviewers cover this and other important information about reviewing manuscripts for Public Health Research & Practice.

Peer reviewers should be familiar with the types of articles we publish as this background information will inform your review. A guide to each of our article types and what we are looking for is available on the Editorial criteria page in the Authors’ centre of this site.

We ask reviewers to consider our aims when completing their review. Our particular focus on the research-practice interface should be front-of-mind for reviewers, and if papers are strongly focussed on this area, we welcome as much advice as reviewers can give on how the authors of these papers might achieve publication.

If you have any questions about the peer review process or would like assistance with our online review system, please contact the Editor Ms Anne Messenger or visit the ScholarOne help page, which offers reviewers information on how to use the system.

Confidentiality

The journal uses a system of single-blind peer review, where reviewers’ details are kept confidential and authors’ details are attached to their manuscript.

The journal takes its commitment to your confidentiality very seriously. All reviewer comments passed on to authors are de-identified. We do not edit them unless they contain unconstructive or derogatory statements. We think it is important that reviewers are able to speak plainly, while maintaining a respectful tone in their criticism. We also ask reviewers to keep each manuscript confidential, even after the review process is complete.

It is also important to observe that the unpublished manuscript is a privileged confidential communication and we ask you not to distribute it under any circumstances.

For more information on our confidentiality and other policies please review our Editorial policies and refer to our Guidelines for reviewers.

The peer review process

We engage the services of peer reviewers for most of the journal’s content. All original research, systematic reviews and research methods articles, In Practice articles and Brief reports are reviewed. Perspectives articles are normally reviewed. Two reviewer opinions are sought, however in some cases, a third reviewer may be consulted. The editorial team may also consider a paper could benefit from the insights of a statistical reviewer, in which case we will seek this advice.

The journal Associate Editor responsible for the manuscript will make a recommendation on publication to the Editor and Editor-in-Chief based on the content of the reviews and their own input. The Editor-in-Chief then makes the final decision on whether to publish.

If a paper is sent back to an author based on reviewer feedback, we may ask you to review the author’s revision. We will not send you revised papers that have not adequately addressed your concerns. We will notify you of our publication decision.

A full outline of the publication process, including peer review, can be found in our Authors’ centre.

Ethics and standards

Public Health Research & Practice asks reviewers to abide by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

When we ask reviewers to declare any competing interests, we ask you to consider the following:

  • The potential for your personal financial gain or loss from the paper’s publication
  • Your association (financial or otherwise) with an organisation that could financially gain or lose from the paper’s publication
  • A strong positive or negative relationship with the paper’s author that could impair your judgement
  • A personal position or association with an issue that is in conflict with the content of the paper or its author.

The journal takes ethics and standards very seriously. For further information, please review our Editorial policies, Guidelines for reviewers, or Author guidelines.