CJEM Policies and Procedures - Page 2
- The peer review package
- CJEM Policy on Article Rejection Appeals
- CJEM Policy on Reporting of Editors' Relationships With Industry
- CJEM Policy on Reporting of Authors' Relationships With Industry
- Criteria for Authorship
- CJEM Manuscript Processing
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. James Ducharme, Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, c/o firstname.lastname@example.org
- 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:
- Agree with manuscript rejection, or
- Disagree with manuscript rejection; recommend acceptance as is, or
- 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.
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.
Downloadable: Criteria Form
Criteria for Authorship
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.