Article Text

Download PDFPDF
When reviewers disagree
  1. I B Pless
  1. Correspondence to:
 Professor I B Pless
 Editor; barry.pless{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

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 …

View Full Text