International Journal of Emergency and Trauma Nursing and Practices Cover

International Journal of Emergency and Trauma Nursing and Practices

Editor Overview

IJETNP maintains an Editorial Board of practicing researchers from around the world, to ensure manuscripts are handled by editors who are experts in the field of study.

Publisher

STM Journals, An imprint of Consortium e-Learning Network Pvt. Ltd.

E-mail: [email protected]
(Tel): (+91) 0120- 4781 200
(Mob) (+91) 9810078958, +919667725932

Peer Review Policy

Last updated: 2022-04-30

Shape the future of research in your field

What is Peer Review?

Peer review is a process that is used to evaluate and validate scientific research work before it is published. The main aim of peer review is to ensure that the research work published is of high quality and can be relied upon by the scientific community. The process involves independent experts (reviewers) assessing the research work of others to determine its quality, accuracy, and validity.

  • Submission: The peer review process starts when an author submits their research work to a journal or publisher. The manuscript is then reviewed by an editor to determine whether it is suitable for review.
  • Submission: The peer review process starts when an author submits their research work to a journal or publisher. The manuscript is then reviewed by an editor to determine whether it is suitable for review.
  • Submission: The peer review process starts when an author submits their research work to a journal or publisher. The manuscript is then reviewed by an editor to determine whether it is suitable for review.
  • Submission: The peer review process starts when an author submits their research work to a journal or publisher. The manuscript is then reviewed by an editor to determine whether it is suitable for review.
  • Submission: The peer review process starts when an author submits their research work to a journal or publisher. The manuscript is then reviewed by an editor to determine whether it is suitable for review.

Types of Peer Review

Single-Blind Peer Review

Single-Blind Peer Review is a commonly used peer review model in scientific research publishing. In this model, the reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. The aim of this model is to reduce potential biases in the review process and to ensure that the review process is fair and impartial. Single-Blind Peer Review has its advantages and disadvantages. One of the main advantages is that it is a widely accepted and traditional model that is familiar to both authors and reviewers. It also allows reviewers to provide feedback based on their expertise while reducing potential biases that may arise from knowing the author's identity. However, one of the main disadvantages is that it is still susceptible to potential biases, such as the reviewers being influenced by the author's reputation or the topic of the research work. Additionally, some authors may feel that the review process is unfair if they are not given the opportunity to respond to the reviewers' feedback directly.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Double-Blind Peer Review is a widely used peer review model in scientific research publishing. In this model, both the reviewers and authors are anonymous to each other. This helps to reduce potential biases in the review process. Double-Blind Peer Review has its advantages and disadvantages. One of the main advantages is that it helps to reduce potential biases that may arise from knowing the author's identity, such as the reviewers being influenced by the author's reputation or the topic of the research work. This ensures that the review process is fair and impartial. However, one of the main disadvantages is that it may be difficult to find suitable reviewers who have expertise in the same field as the manuscript without knowing the author's identity. Additionally, some authors may feel that the review process is unfair if they are not given the opportunity to respond to the reviewers' feedback directly.

Open Peer Review

Open Peer Review is a peer review model that aims to increase transparency and accountability in the review process. In this model, the reviewers' identities are revealed to the authors, and sometimes, to the public as well. Open Peer Review has its advantages and disadvantages. One of the main advantages is that it increases transparency and accountability in the review process. This can lead to better quality reviews and greater trust in the peer review process. Additionally, authors may find the feedback more useful as they can directly communicate with the reviewers and address any issues or concerns. However, one of the main disadvantages is that some reviewers may be hesitant to reveal their identities, especially if they are reviewing controversial or sensitive topics. Additionally, authors may feel pressure to respond positively to the reviewers' feedback, even if they disagree with it, to avoid damaging their reputation.

STM's Approach to Double-Blind Peer-Review

STM is a leading global trade association for academic and professional publishers. STM has a strong focus on maintaining the highest standards in scholarly publishing, including peer review. Double-blind peer review is one of the most widely used and effective methods of peer review, and STM has adopted this model for many of its member journals.

  • The STM double-blind peer review process involves keeping the identities of both the reviewer and author anonymous. This ensures that the review process is fair and unbiased, with reviewers evaluating the manuscript based solely on its merits.
  • The STM double-blind peer review process involves keeping the identities of both the reviewer and author anonymous. This ensures that the review process is fair and unbiased, with reviewers evaluating the manuscript based solely on its merits.
  • The reviewers are sent the manuscript along with detailed guidelines and criteria to evaluate the manuscript. They are asked to assess the originality, quality, and validity of the research presented and provide constructive feedback to the author.
  • The reviewers submit their feedback to the journal editor, who then makes a decision on whether to accept, reject or request revisions to the manuscript.
  • If revisions are requested, the author is asked to make the necessary changes and resubmit the manuscript for another round of review.
  • Once the manuscript is accepted, it goes through a rigorous copyediting and proofreading process before being published in the journal.
  • STM has implemented several quality standards and guidelines to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the double-blind peer review process. These guidelines cover areas such as reviewer selection, review criteria, reviewer feedback, and conflict of interest.
  • To ensure that the peer review process is fair and unbiased, STM encourages reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect their review. These conflicts of interest may include personal or professional relationships with the author or funding sources that may influence the reviewer's evaluation.
  • STM also recognizes the importance of transparency in the peer review process and encourages journals to publish reviewer reports alongside the published manuscript. This helps to increase the accountability of the peer review process and provides valuable feedback to the author.

Why Peer-Review?

Peer review is an integral part of scientific publishing that confirms the validity of the manuscript. Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to help improve the manuscripts they review. By undergoing peer review, manuscripts should become:

  • Robustness: Peer reviewers may point out gaps in a paper that require more explanation or additional experiments.
  • Easier access and easy to read: If parts of your paper are difficult to understand, reviewers can suggest changes.
  • More useful: Peer reviewers also consider the importance of your paper to others in your field.

Key Features of Peer-Review

  • lear Peer Review Policies and Standards.
    • The first pillar of quality peer review is establishing clear peer review policies and standards. Journal policies and standards ensure that all parties involved in peer review — editors, authors, and reviewers — know what is expected of them and that all manuscripts are handled in the same way. To ensure quality in peer review, consistency is key! Journals should have:
      • Established Peer Review Policies: Peer review policies are a statement on the peer review guidelines and process the journal follows for all manuscript submissions. Peer review policies should include an overview of the journal’s peer-review process (e.g. blindness, reviewers per manuscript, rounds of review allotted) and the anticipated peer review timeframe, as well as statements on publication ethics.
      • Standardized Submission Guidelines: Authors should know what is expected of them when preparing their manuscript for a journal, from layout requirements to the citation and data reporting standards they’re expected to follow. All of this information should be included in the author guidelines section of the journal website. Journals should also require authors to provide statements of originality and disclosures with their submissions.
      • Standardized Reviewer Feedback: Journals should establish clear guidelines for peer reviewers to follow, including reminders of the duties of reviewers — to be objective, diligent, and confidential in their reporting — as well as a standardized reviewer feedback form. You can only expect reviewers to answer the questions that you ask them, required feedback forms ensure greater consistency and quality in referee reports.
    • All journal policies and standards must be actionable. For example, all of the process steps explained in a journal’s peer review policies must be carried out. So if it states all original research manuscripts will have two external reviewers, this should always be the case. Additionally, journals must have plans in place for enforcing all ethical policies and standards. If an article is found to have a conflict of interest or if there is an allegation of misconduct post-publication, the journal must have processes in place to address the situation. Additionally, if the journal requires authors to follow certain reporting guidelines, it should have a process in place to check for adherence.
  • Peer Review Performance Tracking
    • The first pillar of quality peer review is establishing clear peer review policies and standards. Journal policies and standards ensure that all parties involved in peer review — editors, authors, and reviewers — know what is expected of them and that all manuscripts are handled in the same way. To ensure quality in peer review, consistency is key! Journals should have:
      • Established Peer Review Policies: Peer review policies are a statement on the peer review guidelines and process the journal follows for all manuscript submissions. Peer review policies should include an overview of the journal’s peer-review process (e.g. blindness, reviewers per manuscript, rounds of review allotted) and the anticipated peer review timeframe, as well as statements on publication ethics.
      • Standardized Submission Guidelines: Authors should know what is expected of them when preparing their manuscript for a journal, from layout requirements to the citation and data reporting standards they’re expected to follow. All of this information should be included in the author guidelines section of the journal website. Journals should also require authors to provide statements of originality and disclosures with their submissions.
      • Standardized Reviewer Feedback: Journals should establish clear guidelines for peer reviewers to follow, including reminders of the duties of reviewers — to be objective, diligent, and confidential in their reporting — as well as a standardized reviewer feedback form. You can only expect reviewers to answer the questions that you ask them, required feedback forms ensure greater consistency and quality in referee reports.
    • All journal policies and standards must be actionable. For example, all of the process steps explained in a journal’s peer review policies must be carried out. So if it states all original research manuscripts will have two external reviewers, this should always be the case. Additionally, journals must have plans in place for enforcing all ethical policies and standards. If an article is found to have a conflict of interest or if there is an allegation of misconduct post-publication, the journal must have processes in place to address the situation. Additionally, if the journal requires authors to follow certain reporting guidelines, it should have a process in place to check for adherence.
  • Transparent Publishing and Data Sharing Policies
    • Finally, the third pillar of quality peer review at academic journals — transparent publishing and data sharing policies — addresses key concerns around research biases and reproducibility. Journals can facilitate the reporting of null and negative results as well as research reproducibility by enabling and encouraging authors to share their manuscripts and data pre- and post-publication.

Peer Review Quality Standards

The team is responsible for upholding the following quality standards:

  • Objectivity: Peer review should be objective and impartial. Reviewers should evaluate the work based on its scientific merit and not on personal beliefs, biases, or other factors.
  • Competence: Peer review should be conducted by individuals with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers should have a strong understanding of the research area and should be able to provide insightful and constructive feedback.
  • Confidentiality: Peer review should be conducted in a confidential manner. Reviewers should not disclose any information about the work or its authors without the author's consent.
  • Timeliness: Peer review should be conducted in a timely manner. Reviewers should provide feedback promptly to allow authors to make necessary revisions and for the publication process to proceed without undue delay.
  • Constructive feedback: Peer review should provide constructive feedback to authors. Reviewers should highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the work and provide suggestions for improvement.
  • Adherence to standards: Peer review should adhere to established standards and guidelines for scientific research. Reviewers should ensure that the work meets ethical and scientific standards, such as the use of appropriate methodology and the avoidance of plagiarism.
  • Transparency: Peer review should be conducted in a transparent manner. The review process should be clearly outlined and communicated to authors, and reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
  • Openness: Some peer review models advocate for openness, where the reviewers' identities are known to the authors and readers. In such cases, reviewers should be accountable for their reviews and ensure that they adhere to the same quality standards as traditional anonymous peer review.

Post-Submission Steps

After a manuscript is submitted for peer review, there are several steps that take place. The following points outline some of the common post-submission steps:

  • Objectivity: Peer review should be objective and impartial. Reviewers should evaluate the work based on its scientific merit and not on personal beliefs, biases, or other factors.
  • Competence: Peer review should be conducted by individuals with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers should have a strong understanding of the research area and should be able to provide insightful and constructive feedback.
  • Confidentiality: Peer review should be conducted in a confidential manner. Reviewers should not disclose any information about the work or its authors without the author's consent.
  • Timeliness: Peer review should be conducted in a timely manner. Reviewers should provide feedback promptly to allow authors to make necessary revisions and for the publication process to proceed without undue delay.
  • Constructive feedback: Peer review should provide constructive feedback to authors. Reviewers should highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the work and provide suggestions for improvement.
  • Adherence to standards: Peer review should adhere to established standards and guidelines for scientific research. Reviewers should ensure that the work meets ethical and scientific standards, such as the use of appropriate methodology and the avoidance of plagiarism.
  • Transparency: Peer review should be conducted in a transparent manner. The review process should be clearly outlined and communicated to authors, and reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
  • Openness: Some peer review models advocate for openness, where the reviewers' identities are known to the authors and readers. In such cases, reviewers should be accountable for their reviews and ensure that they adhere to the same quality standards as traditional anonymous peer review.

Handling Editors: Reviewer Invitations

After a manuscript is submitted for peer review, there are several steps that take place. The following points outline some of the common post-submission steps:

  • Identify Potential Reviewers: Handling Editors must identify potential reviewers who have expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. They may consult various sources, such as previous reviewers, editorial board members, or other experts in the field.
  • Send Invitations: Once potential reviewers have been identified, Handling Editors will send invitations to them. The invitation should include information about the manuscript, the review process, and the expected timeframe for completing the review.
  • Follow Up: Handling Editors may need to follow up with potential reviewers if they do not respond to the initial invitation. This may involve sending reminders or contacting alternative reviewers.
  • Monitor Progress: Handling Editors must monitor the progress of the review process to ensure that reviewers are completing their evaluations in a timely manner. They may need to send reminders or follow up with reviewers who are behind schedule.
  • Evaluate Feedback: After the reviews are completed, Handling Editors must evaluate the feedback provided by the reviewers. They will use this feedback to make a decision on whether to accept, reject, or request revisions to the manuscript.
  • Communicate Decision: Once a decision has been made, Handling Editors must communicate it to the author(s) of the manuscript. They will also provide feedback from the reviewers and any instructions for revising the manuscript, if necessary.