Guide to Reviewers

 

OA Publishing London encourages reviewers with over five-year postgraduate medical experience or five years of postdoctoral experience with a high standard of English language. OA Publishing London acknowledge the time and effort devoted by our reviewers and have a unique reward scheme which may be beneficial to their own research output, professional appraisal and personal development portfolio.

Reviewers will be provided with an annual breakdown of their yearly reviewing experience with an equivalent statement/ certification of continuing professional development hours spent in this work for their professional appraisal requirements (2 CPD points per review since reading reflecting and reviewing a manuscript is a significant educational and professional endeavour). To support active reviewers, OA Publishing London will also provide discounts and waiver for the submission of a piece of the reviewers own research work submitted to OA Publishing London.

 


We value our reviewers’ recommendations and our systems are designed to make reviews easier for them to accept articles for review, complete their reviews and provide rapid feedback.

Confidentiality is very important in all aspects of the reviewing cycle, we expect the highest standards of professional behaviour from all our reviewers. Reviews should be considered privileged and the information contained within the manuscripts scientifcally and commercially sensitive. Author data must be kept securely until discarded by electronic shredding. Courtesy and respect for our submitting authors is essential in promoting the submission cycle of high-quality research. The written word does not always convey tone and all responses must be polite and constructive. They must also be written in high quality English and be justified. It is essential that all reviewers declare any conflicts of or completing interests.

Reviewers are supported by their Senior Journal Editorial Team (Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor and Executive Editor) and when required by the independent Publishing House Medical and Scientific Team.

OA Publishing London considers the following article types: Original research study, Case study, Case report, Editorial, Hypothesis, Methodology, Short communication, Study protocol, Reviews, Letter to editor and Meeting report.

 


When assessing the work, please consider the following points:

1. Does it address a significant or timely issue?

2. Is it well reasoned?

3. Is it relatively balanced?

4. Is the standard of writing acceptable?

Authors are the lifeblood of a journal, whose work is quality assured by sensible and fair 'peer review'. Please make account as constructive and detailed as possible in your comments so that authors have the opportunity to overcome any serious deficiencies that you find and please also divide your comments into the following categories:

 


Recommendations to the editor

These comments are confidential. Only the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor and/or Executive Editor will have access to this. We recommend that the space to be used to report any serious concern about the study directly to the senior editors.

Main strengths and weakness of the article; what if anything should be improved, any criticisms or concerns. Also use this for comments that relate to ethical issues. Do not use it to repeat all or part of the comments in your review for the authors.

 


Recommendations to the authors

This is the main peer-review reporting area. Please comment about the scientific value of the paper and whether the manuscript contents fall within the remit of the selected journal or any other OA Publishing London journals. Please comment on the structure of the paper and the writing style.

It will be very useful if the peer-reviewer divided his/her peer-review report into sub-sections (e.g. abstract, introduction…etc.) and commented on each of them independently.

It may help our authors if these questions are answered:

Is the article within the scope of the Journal?  

Do authors' conclusions follow from the data?

Are the results original?

Are the results significant?

Does the abstract cover the contents of the paper satisfactorily?

Are keywords satisfactory?

Are the references satisfactory?

Is the nomenclature correct?

Are the figures/illustrations/tables relevant?

Are figure legends appropriate?

 


Comments on the statistics

This section can be used to comment on the statistical analysis of the study. The reviewer should highlight the fact that the manuscript may require review by a statistician, if appropriate.

 


Competing interests

Is there a financial or other conflict of interest between your work and that of the authors?

Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the manuscript? Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?

If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.

If your reply is yes to any, please provide details.

 


Recommendation

Accept as it is (no changes)

Accept- minor corrections (which the author must respond to before acceptance to publication can be reached)

Accept- major corrections (which the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)

Reject (article of low scientific value or does not fall within the remit of the journal)

Editors-in-Chief will invite journal (in-house) and/or external 'peer reviewers' by an automated time-lined email system. Reviewers will receive an email invitation to review a manuscript with the manuscript abstract. If a reviewer is able to complete the 'peer review', he/she may log in to the reviewers page to gain full access to the manuscript PDF. If the reviewer is unable to review the manuscript they may use the decline link within the invitation email to decline the invitation allowing another reviewer to be selected in a timely manner.

Once an invitation is accepted, the reviewer will have access to the whole manuscript and any supplementary information. Reviewers must read the whole submission. We advise notes are made. Reviews may only be submitted on-line within our time lined 'peer review' system which is audited.

 


The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has produced and updated the "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (URM) Submitted to Biomedical Journals". The Medical Director and Senior Editor of Open Access Publishing London (OAPL) have agreed to incorporate the URM into the review and publication process of all OAPL journals. Download a PDF version of the full text of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals here.

 


The Council of Science Editors

The Council of Science Editors (CSE) has produced "Editorial Policy Statements" that cover the responsibilities and rights of editors of peer-reviewed journals. The Medical Director and Senior Editor of Open Access Publishing London (OAPL) have agreed to incorporate these Statements into the review and publication process of all OAPL journals.