Peer Review Information
Peer review is an essential step for ensuring the quality of the manuscripts published in The Journal. We use a double-blind peer review process for manuscript review. Peer reviewers consider the appropriateness of the manuscript for The Journal, ensure the writing is clear and concise (i.e. figures are consistent with text, key messages are highlighted), and verify that the article is appropriately cited. Peer reviewers also ensure the conclusions from original work are appropriate for the rigor of the evaluation methods.
Details:
Expectations:
Prohibition of Generative AI Tools in Peer Reviews:
The use of generative AI tools to support peer reviews is strictly prohibited. Peer reviewers are explicitly forbidden from entering confidential, embargoed, or private information into public AI tools, such as ChatGPT. Since the data entered into these tools becomes part of the repository used for content generation, the confidentiality of papers under review is compromised.
Interested in becoming a peer reviewer? Fill out the survey below:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PLT6FQQ
Sign-ups are checked monthly; you will receive an email once you are added to the peer reviewer database
Editor: Michael Nagy: [email protected]
Links:
Details:
- Areas of expertise are identified, and articles are assigned based on knowledge and interest of specific article topics
- Peer reviews are assigned every 3 months, 6 months, or annually based on the reviewer’s preference
- 1-3 independent peer reviewers are assigned to a manuscript
- Approximately 2-3 hours should be allocated to complete a thorough review and provide written feedback
- Reviewers serve to provide feedback focused on the content of the manuscript
Expectations:
- A final review should be returned within 2 weeks
- Manuscripts are confidential and should not be discussed until after the article is published
- Senior reviewers working with new peer reviewers to foster peer reviewing skills is appropriate and encouraged
- Any potential conflicts of interest should be communicated to the editor, Michael Nagy
- Reviewers cannot directly contact the writer with exception to their written review
- Recommendations and requests for more information should be submitted to the peer review coordinator
- Reviewers must check that reasonable statistical tests are used and should check totals and tables for accuracy
- A written review with feedback on the document, a completed Peer Review Evaluation Criteria Checklist (linked below), and a recommendation regarding publication must be submitted to the editor
Prohibition of Generative AI Tools in Peer Reviews:
The use of generative AI tools to support peer reviews is strictly prohibited. Peer reviewers are explicitly forbidden from entering confidential, embargoed, or private information into public AI tools, such as ChatGPT. Since the data entered into these tools becomes part of the repository used for content generation, the confidentiality of papers under review is compromised.
Interested in becoming a peer reviewer? Fill out the survey below:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PLT6FQQ
Sign-ups are checked monthly; you will receive an email once you are added to the peer reviewer database
Editor: Michael Nagy: [email protected]
Links: