rss
Inj Prev 2006;12:211 doi:10.1136/ip.2006.090806
  • Editorial
  • Journalology

When reviewers disagree

  1. I B Pless
  1. Correspondence to:
 Professor I B Pless
 Editor; barry.pless{at}mcgill.ca

    The manuscript decision process at Injury Prevention

    Editors must satisfy two constituencies—authors and readers. (Sadly, they do not always overlap!) Readers care about the scientific quality of papers we publish and the manner in which they are written. Authors care about being accepted with the least possible hassle. To help us satisfy both, we rely on the advice of reviewers. Journals differ on how they use reviewers but our policy has remained quite consistent since the start. We ask three reviewers, one of whom is usually a member of the editorial board, to assess each paper along four dimensions: Significance, Appropriateness, Science, Writing. Each of these is rated on a three-point scale: high, medium, or low, along with a composite recommendation—accept as is (exceptionally rare), provisionally accept, provisionally reject, or reject (relatively common). Concerns …

    Responses to this article

    Register for free content

    The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

    Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

    Official journal of ISCAIP and SAVIR