IJPHM Review Process
All IJPHM reviewers must observe the code of conduct provided by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). Brief guidelines on IJPHM policy and publication ethics are provided here.
The review process is as follows:
- Review cycle starts with an initial assessment of the editor whether the paper is in journal’s scope, IJPHM follows a single-blind review process and requires at least three independent reviews before a decision is made. Editor initiates the review process by assigning the paper to one of associate editors.
- Following an email invitation by a member of the Editorial Board to review a paper for the International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, reviewers are directed by a link to the appropriate page and review form, where they can accept to review the paper or decline. In the latter case, they are requested to indicate the name of an appropriate reviewer if possible. Providing this suggestion is very much appreciated.
- IJPHM does not use double-blind review, instead uses single-blind review process. The reviewers are never known to the authors, but the authors are always known to the reviewers. In this way, the paper does not hide relevant aspects (e.g., references to other papers by the same authors) that may be helpful for a balanced and fully informed review.
- Acceptance Decisions: The paper review procedure involves a recommendation prepared by the Associate Editor on the basis of peer reviews. The final decision on publication, sustaining or modifying this recommendation, is taken by the Editor handling the paper.
- Revisions: A re-review and rebuttal/revision cycle may continue until all dissenting reviewers accept the revision or a collective decision is made to reject the paper, esp. if revisions are not acceptable.
- Rejections: Papers that are recommended for rejection by at least 2/3 or a majority of reviewers (if more than 3 reviewers were recruited) get rejected, with authors being given a period of two weeks to respond in case they feel the rejection was not justified.
- Reviewers are prompted with reminders to respect the review deadline as IJPHM is committed to provide results of initial review round within 6-8 weeks. IJPHM values the importance of minimizing delays and making the latest research results available asap.
Suggested Reviewer Guidelines
- Reviewers are requested to provide detailed comments to the authors in support of their recommendation. The following points are suggested for making comments:
- What is the contribution of the paper?
- Does the author explain the significance of this paper?
- Is the paper clearly written and well organized?
- Does the introduction state the purpose of the paper?
- Are the references relevant and complete? Supply missing references.
- If the paper is not technically sound, why not?
- If the paper is too long, how can it be shortened?
Reviewers are requested to supply any information that they think will be useful to the author for a revision, for enhancing the appeal of the paper, or for convincing him/her of the weak points or mistakes.
- Reviewers are strongly suggested to not identify themselves or their organization within the review text. The reviewer’s recommendation for acceptance or rejection is not be included in the comments to the author.
- In their critical comments to author, reviewers are urged to be specific. If they find that the results are already known, IJPHM requests references to earlier papers which contain these or similar results. If reviewers state that the reasoning is incorrect or vague, they are required to indicate specifically where and why. If reviewers suggest that the paper be rewritten, specific suggestions are required as to which parts of the paper should be deleted, amplified or modified, and how.
Upon completion of the review process of a paper, access to the Editor decision and to all anonymous reviews will be available through online review system for the reviewers of the paper.