CJEM Policies and Procedures - Page 2

Policy on Article Rejection Appeals

Criteria for appeal:

Authors may appeal a rejection decision if either of the following conditions exists:

the decision editor had a conflict of interest that may have prevented an unbiased decision, or
the decision editor based their rejection decision on a misinterpretation of the manuscript.

Initiating an appeal:

Appeals must be initiated within 1 month of the editorial decision.
Appeals must state clearly which of the above conditions justifies the appeal.
Appeals must be in writing and should be directed to Dr. Grant Innes, Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, c/o the Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital, 1081 Burrard St. Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 1Y6. Phone: 604-806-8980; Fax: 801-659-0455. email: ginnes@nterchange.ubc.ca

Appeal Process:

Appeals will be handled by the editor-in-chief or by a senior associate editor who was not involved in the initial rejection decision.
The managing editor will forward copies of the original and any revised manuscripts, all peer reviews, and all relevant correspondence to the editor handling the appeal.
The editor handling the appeal will determine whether the appeal is justified based on the criteria above.
The editor handling the appeal will notify the initial decision editor that an appeal is in progress and will discuss with the decision editor the reasons for the initial rejection.
Based on the information available, the editor handling the appeal will make a decision, which should be:
1. Agree with manuscript rejection, or
2. Disagree with manuscript rejection; recommend acceptance as is, or
3. Disagree with manuscript rejection; recommend acceptance after further revision.
The editor handling the appeal will discuss the appeal decision with the initial decision editor and communicate this decision to the author within 14 days.

In difficult cases, the editor handling the appeal may feel there is inadequate information to settle the appeal. In such cases, the editor will notify the author that the manuscript will undergo a secondary review process. If the author agrees to this, the manuscript will be sent for one or more additional peer reviews, after which all peer reviews, including those considered in the initial rejection decision, will be forwarded for expedited review by an associate editor who was not involved in the initial decision. The initial decision editor's opinions and correspondence will not be considered in the second decision process. The second decision editor's disposition will be considered final.

Downloadable: Editor's Report Form

Policy on Reporting of Editors' Relationships With Industry

In an effort to ensure that authors receive the least biased editorial decisions possible, CJEM is asking all editors to annually declare any potential financial relationships with Industry. Editors will be excused from articles where there is any potential conflict and, in cases where senior editors have a potential conflict, the article in question will be handled by an associate editor with no potential conflict.

Editors should provide the following information:

I am an employee of the following companies:

I hold shares (value greater than $1,000) in the following companies:

Within the last 2 years I have received speaker honoraria from the following companies:

Within the last 2 years I have participated as a member of an advisory board in the following companies:

Within the last 2 years I have served as an investigator in clinical trials funded by the following companies:

Within the last 2 years I have participated as an investigator in original research supported in part or in whole by funding from the following companies:

Please list all companies from whom you have received the above types of funding or support:

Signature

Dated

Downloadable: Author's Report Form

Policy on Reporting of Authors' Relationships With Industry

In an effort to allow readers to review articles in the most informed light possible, the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine requires all authors to reveal any possible financial ties with proprietary companies. Such relationships will not prejudice acceptance of articles, and will not be revealed to reviewers during the blinded review process. Declared ties will be listed on the first page of any published article or editorial. Please answer the following questions.

1. The majority of funding for the work discussed in this manuscript came from:

2. Check all of the following that apply:

I received direct funding to write this article:

The research presented in this study was funded in whole or in part by a commercial company (specify below):

I have received funding for part or all of the research discussed in this review article or meta-analysis:

I am an employee of the company who manufactures the medication or product discussed in this article:

I hold shares (value greater than $1,000) in the company who manufactures the medication or product discussed in this paper:

I have received honoraria as a speaker for the product discussed in this article:

Within the last 2 years I have participated as a member of an advisory board for the company whose product is discussed in this article:

This review article, guideline or position statement was developed from a meeting funded by an industry grant:

Within the last 2 years I have served as an investigator in clinical trials funded by the company who manufactures the product discussed in this paper:

3. I have the above indicated relationship(s) with the following companies: Please describe the relationship for each company (use back of page if necessary).

Signature

Dated

Downloadable: Criteria Form

Criteria for Authorship

Authorship requires a substantial contribution to the intellectual content of the paper. Potential authors should fulfill at least 1 criterion from each of A, B and C, below:

A. Design and data:

involved in study conception and design,

involved in data acquisition,

involved in data analysis and interpretation

other important contribution (specify)_________________

B. Manuscript preparation:

drafted the manuscript,

participated in substantive revision of the manuscript.

approved the final revised version of the manuscript

C. Expertise:

study design or statistical expertise,

grant writing or funding,

administrative, technical, or material support,

facilitated or enabled the performance of the study at a site,

supervised study performance or data management

Group authorship: If authorship is attributed to a group (either solely or in addition to specific named authors), all authors listed by name on the title page must meet the requirements for authorship described above. Group members who do not meet criteria for authorship should instead be listed in an acknowledgment.

Note: At the time of manuscript submission, corresponding authors should describe the individual contributions of each named author to the work they have submitted.

CJEM Manuscript Processing

Authors submit articles to CJEM head office.
The managing editor catalogs each article.
The editor-in-chief assigns a section (e.g. Advances, Case Reports) and a decision editor.
The managing editor forwards an unblinded copy of the article to the decision editor.
The decision editor should suggest one or more appropriate peer reviewers for the article.
The editor-in-chief will identify other appropriate peer reviewers.
The managing editor solicits 3 reviewers who are willing to do reviews within 2 weeks.
The managing editor blinds the manuscript and forwards it to the identified reviewers.
The managing editor notifies the decision editor who the reviewers are and when their reviews are due.
The managing editor follows up with reviewers if reviews have not been returned in 14 days.
The managing editor collates completed reviews and forwards these to the decision editor.
Decision editors should query CJEM head office if peer reviews for their articles have not reached them within 1 month of their agreeing to handle the article.
Decision editors will compile the peer reviews and draft a response letter to the author, indicating the disposition of the article. The editor's response letter should state explicitly which of the following categories the article falls into: a) accept without revision, b) revise and accept, c) revise and reconsider, or d) reject. The editor's response letter should also advise authors to forward their revisions to the editor-in-chief, and that final editing for clarity, brevity and style may be necessary if the article is accepted. (see 'Editor's Response Letters.')
If decision editors are uncertain regarding the disposition of a manuscript, they should discuss this with the editor-in-chief or a senior associate editor before writing the decision letter. If the decision editor is uncomfortable with any aspect of methodology or statistics, he or she should discuss this with the editor-in-chief or a senior associate editor, and the paper should be forwarded for methodology review before the editor's response letter is finalized.
Decision editors should respond to the author within 2 weeks of receiving the peer reviews and within 6 weeks of receiving the article from CJEM head office.
Decision editors may mail response letters directly to the corresponding author or forward them to CJEM head office for mailing. If they choose the latter course, they must inform the managing editor clearly that the response letter was not forwarded to the author.
Decision editors should fill out the Peer Review Evaluation Form and return it to CJEM head office. These forms will be used to provide feedback to reviewers.
Decision editors must send a copy of all response letters to head office for tracking purposes.
When authors return revisions to CJEM head office, the managing editor will catalog the revised articles and forward them to the decision editor.
The decision editor will determine whether the review comments have been adequately addressed, make a final decision about publication, and notify the author of the decision within 2-4 weeks. In many cases, decision editors may suggest additional minor revisions. If so they should correspond directly with the author. If decision editors are uncertain regarding the disposition of a manuscript, they should discuss this with the editor-in-chief or a senior associate editor before writing the decision letter.
Decision editors should copy all correspondence to the CJEM editorial office.
If an article is accepted, the managing editor will send copyright, conflict-of-interest and release forms to the authors.
Prior to publication, all articles will undergo final editing for brevity, clarity and style. The editor-in-chief or senior associate editor will determine the level of editing required. All revisions will be approved by the author prior to publication.
When the editor-in-chief or senior associate editor feels the article is ready for publication, it will be forwarded for copy-editing and layout at the Canadian Medical Association publishing offices in Ottawa.