- Email: [email protected]
Manuscript review process
Journal of Cardiac Failure Vol. 4 No. 2
Manuscript Review Process The process of providing scholarly and knowledgeable reviews of scientific manuscripts submitted for publication is a challenge to all journal editors. Experienced reviewers are overwhelmed with mounting workloads that burden their time. Many accept the assignment of manuscripts to review as a responsibiltiy to the scientific community. They know they also rely on the goodwill of experts to review their own work. Increasingly, however, selected reviewers decline the invitation and time is lost in seeking alternates. The process is cumbersome and time-consuming. Manuscripts rejected by one journal because of taste or priorities are often submitted to a second journal whose editors must again choose reviewers who may in part duplicate the considerable efforts of prior reviewers. Is there a way to introduce more efficiency into the system and spare some redundancy? The Heart Editors Action Round Table (HEART) group of editors of cardiovascular journals has recognized the problem and tried to address the issue. The optimal solution might be to have manuscripts submitted to a central review process sanctioned by all journals whose editor could select the papers for publication based on the reviews and the authors' journal preference list. This rather revolutionary idea has understandably failed to gain widespread editors' support. But a limited effort to reduce the demands on reviewers has been advocated by several journals. This policy is now in effect at the
Journal of Cardiac Failure. Authors of manuscripts that have been rejected at another journal are invited to submit their appropriately revised manuscripts to the Journal of Cardiac Failure along with the previous reviews sent to the authors. An accompanying letter should provide a response to these reviews and point out the changes made to address the criticisms. The editor of the Journal of Cardiac Failure will then have the option of making a decision based on these reviews or, if deemed necessary, seeldng one or more additional reviews. Although this may be a small step in reducing the delay and reviewer effort in maintaining high publication standards, we hope it is a start toward a more interactive and efficient system. We look forward to our colleagues using this option if they wish. Your comments on this policy are welcome. Jay N. Cohn, MD
Editor-in-Chief
Copyright © 1998 by Churchill Livingstone ®
95
Manuscript Review Process The process of providing scholarly and knowledgeable reviews of scientific manuscripts submitted for publication is a challenge to all journal editors. Experienced reviewers are overwhelmed with mounting workloads that burden their time. Many accept the assignment of manuscripts to review as a responsibiltiy to the scientific community. They know they also rely on the goodwill of experts to review their own work. Increasingly, however, selected reviewers decline the invitation and time is lost in seeking alternates. The process is cumbersome and time-consuming. Manuscripts rejected by one journal because of taste or priorities are often submitted to a second journal whose editors must again choose reviewers who may in part duplicate the considerable efforts of prior reviewers. Is there a way to introduce more efficiency into the system and spare some redundancy? The Heart Editors Action Round Table (HEART) group of editors of cardiovascular journals has recognized the problem and tried to address the issue. The optimal solution might be to have manuscripts submitted to a central review process sanctioned by all journals whose editor could select the papers for publication based on the reviews and the authors' journal preference list. This rather revolutionary idea has understandably failed to gain widespread editors' support. But a limited effort to reduce the demands on reviewers has been advocated by several journals. This policy is now in effect at the
Journal of Cardiac Failure. Authors of manuscripts that have been rejected at another journal are invited to submit their appropriately revised manuscripts to the Journal of Cardiac Failure along with the previous reviews sent to the authors. An accompanying letter should provide a response to these reviews and point out the changes made to address the criticisms. The editor of the Journal of Cardiac Failure will then have the option of making a decision based on these reviews or, if deemed necessary, seeldng one or more additional reviews. Although this may be a small step in reducing the delay and reviewer effort in maintaining high publication standards, we hope it is a start toward a more interactive and efficient system. We look forward to our colleagues using this option if they wish. Your comments on this policy are welcome. Jay N. Cohn, MD
Editor-in-Chief
Copyright © 1998 by Churchill Livingstone ®
95