| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
EDITORIAL |
The author is with the Harlem Health Promotion Center, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, and is technical deputy editor at the Journal.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Jennifer A. Ellis, MPhil, Harlem Health Promotion Center, Mailman School of Public Health of Columbia University, 600 W 168th St, New York, NY 10032 (e-mail: jae33{at}columbia.edu).
 |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
 TOP INTRODUCTION "I DON’T KNOW WHAT..."I’VE READ THE PAPER,...A FINAL WORD ABOUT... |
|---|
The past year has brought many exciting changes for the Journal, including the hiring of new editorial and production staff and, most notably, the unveiling of a new Web-based electronic submission system. These changes have inspired considerable conversation among the editorial staff about the value of our review process and, of course, the value of our reviewers.
Because we have the utmost appreciation for our reviewers, we have made it a priority to provide as much support and guidance as they would like. As part of our commitment to the process, we have developed reviewer recommendations to make the job of the reviewer easier and more efficient. Because one person’s ease and efficiency is another’s headache, these guidelines and recommendations come with an invitation to read the following once, 10 times, or not at all—indeed, these are simply guidelines for those who want them, not rules carved into stone.
Of course, no list is complete without the requisite caveats, and the reviewer recommendations are no exception. The following recommendations represent 2 sets of thoughts about the reviewer’s role: the rules we depend on and the exceptions we make to these rules. Our reviewers should know that no guidelines are inflexible, and the ultimate goal of disseminating quality work that furthers the field of public health is never sacrificed for rigidity or bureaucracy. We aim to keep this overall goal in sight every time we read a submission. We hope that these reviewer recommendations will empower reviewers to be part of the Journal’s contribution to the larger public health community and discourse.
|
"I DON’T KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR": REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS |
|---|
|
TOPINTRODUCTION"I DON’T KNOW WHAT..."I’VE READ THE PAPER,...A FINAL WORD ABOUT... |
|---|
2. Preliminary, exploratory, underfunded, or pilot studies (i.e., generally neglected work). As researchers and practitioners, many of us begin our work with preliminary studies. We lovingly refer to these projects as pilot studies, exploratory studies, or underfunded studies, all of which yield preliminary results about a particular population or issue. Without these important studies, it would be difficult to move forward with work that has traditionally been marginalized. By providing a forum in which these types of studies can be disseminated, we hope to contribute to a process that is continually expanding and growing and makes room for its underattended areas. These preliminary studies are considered for briefs. Although these studies provide preliminary findings, we strive to ensure that our publication standards remain rigorous and address key elements of the research process: for example, high response rates, relevant findings, and testable hypotheses. It is essential that these studies highlight innovative methods or findings, illustrate a new direction for public health, or address a group that is generally underserved.
3. Reviewing for different formats. We see the Journal as a vehicle for disseminating original research and practice. In order to provide a diversity of formats, we have instituted or evolved a variety of departments. Although we consistently apply rigorous standards, different departments have different goals and criteria of which reviewers need to be aware.
4. Research and Practice? Practice and Research? What’s the point? Although different editors approach the first reading of a paper differently, one way to quickly evaluate the overall aim of a paper is to read the Conclusions section of the abstract. This section is key because it concisely shows the reader the paper’s contribution to our overall goal of disseminating quality work that furthers the field of public health. Well-stated conclusions have an accurate interpretation of the results that clearly shows the contribution to public health. If nothing else, our work must provide us with a clear understanding of "real world" implications.
5. Not to be too formulaic, but . . . The validity of a study is almost always strengthened by a high response rate. We prefer to publish studies with response rates that are over 65%. Because of the importance of the response rate in ensuring high validity and lending a context of generalizability, it is nearly impossible for the Journal to publish a paper that does not state the response rate, preferably in the Results section. Cohort or prospective studies, in addition to needing a strong response rate, also need to demonstrate a high follow-up or low attrition rate.
6. Who is this again? As stated earlier, a high response rate is essential, but generalizable findings are also key. If a sample is not generalizable, it is critical to give a justification or explanation of why the research is important despite its lack of external validity. The main caveat within this guideline is that undersampled or "hidden" populations may profit from unconventional study designs.
7. A meritorious Methods section. If reviewers are satisfied that the potential conclusions of the presented research meet the goals of the Journal, rigorous review of a paper should focus on the Methods section. The explanation of methods used to conduct the study should be clear and complete as well as concise and must be able to stand on its own without substantive reference to other published works. Referring to previously published studies that give full explanation of the methodology of the study is useful for careful documentation, but reviewers should look for papers that allow a critical review of the methods without referring elsewhere. Simply put, reviewers should be extremely particular in the review of the methods section.
8. Approaching inevitable threats to validity. Every study has limitations. Every reviewer has walked the difficult line between the ideal study design and execution, and what is feasible in the real world. We encourage a frank discussion of the threats to validity in every study, and we encourage our reviewers to use these discussions as tools so they can place the study in a context of what is already known. The tendency to tally limitations can be resisted—our reviewers should generally be comfortable evaluating the limitations of a study as substantive or nonsubstantive.
|
"I’VE READ THE PAPER, NOW WHAT DO I DO?": PASSING ALONG INPUT |
|---|
|
TOPINTRODUCTION"I DON’T KNOW WHAT..."I’VE READ THE PAPER,...A FINAL WORD ABOUT... |
|---|
There are circumstances in which reviewers read a paper and do not think it deserves publication in the Journal, even with extensive revision. In this case, we trust reviewers to use their time efficiently and inform the editors of the key shortcomings.
|
A FINAL WORD ABOUT COMMUNITY |
|---|
|
TOPINTRODUCTION"I DON’T KNOW WHAT..."I’VE READ THE PAPER,...A FINAL WORD ABOUT... |
|---|
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Accepted for publication November 8, 2002.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
