TY - JOUR T1 - When reviewers disagree JF - Injury Prevention JO - Inj Prev SP - 211 LP - 211 DO - 10.1136/ip.2006.090806 VL - 12 IS - 4 AU - I B Pless Y1 - 2006/08/01 UR - http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/4/211.abstract N2 - 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 … ER -