Home

Current Issue

Archives

Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers

Classified Ads

Links

Subscriptions

Subscriber Registration

Guidelines for Website Users

E-mail Alert Service

Contact Info

MESSAGE TO NEW REVIEWERS

Editorial Committee
Invitation to Review
Confidentiality
Effective Reviews

Editorial Committee. Manuscripts submitted to The Journal of Rheumatology are assessed and assigned to reviewers by the editor and editorial committee at the first bi-weekly editorial committee meeting following submission. Manuscripts that are judged by the committee to meet current editorial and priority criteria are retained and sent for peer review. Up to 3 reviewers are sought for review of a manuscript.

Invitation to Review. Invitations to review, which include a copy of the abstract, are emailed by the editors. When a reviewer accepts a request to review, The Journal will email a link providing access to the full manuscript. On completion of their assessment, reviewers are asked to visit our online submission system at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrheum to submit their comments.

Confidentiality. Reviewers are asked to respect the confidential nature of the information to be evaluated. Manuscripts reviewed for The Journal should not be discussed with anyone who is not directly involved in the review process. If colleagues are consulted, they should be identified to the editors. Reviewers should not disclose their identity to the authors or to other colleagues.

Effective Reviews. While the primary purpose of the evaluation is to provide the editors with the information they need to reach a decision on the value of the manuscript, reviews should also provide separate suggestions to authors on how to strengthen their manuscript. Reviewer feedback is therefore helpful when provided in two forms: as confidential comments reserved for the editors and as open comments to be shared directly with the authors and co-reviewers. These two types of comments should be prepared and inserted as separate texts in the fields provided for each. Reviewers are asked to rate the manuscript for originality, clinical and/or scientific significance, scientific reliability, and clarity and presentation; and to make a recommendation as to its suitability for publication. When making their recommendation, reviewers will want to keep in mind that other reviewer recommendations, including those with conflicting assessments, will be considered by the editors. Other editorial considerations may also bear on a final decision.

When preparing commentary directed to the authors, assessment should focus on the manuscript and should be expressed in an objective and neutral tone. Dispassionate and constructive criticism is invited; and the editor reserves the right to edit or delete comments judged to be inappropriate.

The most effective reviews often include an initial paragraph summarizing major findings presented and the reviewer's overall conclusions as to major strengths and shortcomings of the manuscript. In the main part of the review comments are numbered and broken down into major and minor criticisms if appropriate. The numbering of comments facilitates the editor's evaluation of the manuscript and the author's response.