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:

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (Click)  or JMPT- Instructions for Authors (Click) Accessed on Dec 2005.

Authorship -

All authors of papers submitted to JOURNAL OF MANIPULATIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL THERAPEUTICS (JMPT) must have an intellectual stake in the material presented for publication and must be able to answer for the content of the entire work. Authors should be able 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 by the editor. All authors are required to complete and return an authorship form.

Excerpted from:

American Journal of Public Health (Click) or AJPH -- Instructions for Authors (Click).  Accessed on Dec 2005.

Authorship and contributorship -

Individual contributions of each author must be specified in a single brief statement. Listing more than 6 authors requires justification.

Example: E.C. Frampton conceived of the study and supervised all aspects of its implementation. S. Hampton assisted with the study and completed the analyses. R.E. Lewison synthesized analyses and led the writing. N.C. Smithson assisted with the study and analyses. All authors helped to conceptualize ideas, interpret findings, and review drafts of the manuscript.

Authors 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. 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. Copyright is transferred to the American Public Health Association upon acceptance.

Cover letter -

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. Do not include this cover letter in the manuscript file that you later will upload for review.

Acknowledgments - 

Disclosure of all financial and material support is required. 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.

Your acknowledgments should be copied and pasted into the space provided on the first page of the submission form.

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/e/).

Review, Editing, and Production -

We acknowledge new, revised, and resubmitted manuscripts upon receipt. About 60% of submissions are rejected upon initial screening by the editors, usually within 1-2 weeks of receipt. Peer review of the remainder takes 2.3 months from submission to initial decision. 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 time from submission to final acceptance of reviewed/revised papers averages 5 months. Upon acceptance, authors will be asked to submit final version source files for editing and production. Please visit our Production Page for information regarding the production process. After editing, authors receive first proofs for review; corrected proofs are automatically posted in the First Look section of the online journal 4 to 6 weeks in advance of final publication. The Journal publishes about 20% of initial submissions. Publication of uncommissioned manuscripts currently occurs within 10 to 12 months of acceptance.

 

[ Top of Page ] [Immunization Information Resource Home]