Publications Management System

Instructions for reviewers

PURPOSE OF PEER REVIEW

The peer review is one of the critical elements for the publication of scientific works. In general, its most important functions are:

  • Guaranteeing that the research is properly evaluated before it is published.
  • Improving the research quality, since a rigorous review performed by experts helps to adjust important points and correct possible errors in the work.

 

Reviewers’ names in each work will only be known by the Editorial Board.

 

BEFORE STARTING THE REVIEW, EVALUATE:

  • Do the subjects approached in the manuscript match your action/knowledge area? If you feel unable to perform a thorough review, we ask for kindly informing the editor as soon as possible and suggest other qualified reviewer for such manuscript if possible – and his/her respective addresses.
  • Is it possible to perform the review in time? If it is not possible to do so, inform the editor immediately.
  • Is there any conflict of interest? For example, if the work belongs to colleagues of your department or if you already wrote other articles with one of the authors. These aspects will not necessarily hinder your participation as a reviewer of the article, but this decision will be up to the editor, who should be informed as soon as possible.

 

REVIEWING THE MANUSCRIPT

 The review is a classified process and the manuscript must not be presented to third parties.

 

If you wish to know other opinions to help the review process, get in touch with the editor. Likewise, the review must be done without any contact with the articles’ authors, unless if it is done by the editor.

 

At the time to give an opinion, the following fundamental criteria must be considered:

 

Originality: does de manuscript approach a subject which is new enough and contribute to advances in the field?

 

Relevance of the theme: is the subject of the research interesting and relevant for the field?

 

Organization and structure of the work: is the manuscript arranged in accordance with the publication standards of SALUS Journal of Health Sciences?  Is its structure adequate to be published in a scientific journal?

 

Clear and unambiguous language: is the writing proper and adequate for a scientific text? If the text deserves reviews and/or grammar or edition corrections, the reviewer does not need to perform it – but clearly point these aspects in the evaluation.

 

Abstract (English and Portuguese): do they properly reflect what is exposed in the work?

 

Well-defined problem: does the text (especially the introduction) properly describe what the authors aim to demonstrate? Does it clearly describe the state of the art of the problem investigated and its correlation with the work?

 

Well-defined methodology: do the authors properly describe how experiments were performed, how data were collected, the measures and their types? Is there enough information to reproduce the work? Are the new/important methods explained with the demanded rigor and detailing?

 

Results: do the authors properly explain the discovers/results of the experiments? Are the statistical analyzes correct? Etc. The interpretation of results must be included in the appropriate session for discussions and conclusions. The discussion must support the authors’ claims, based on the obtained results and on previous studies. The conclusion must clearly describe the scientific contributions of the work.

 

Adequate references: are the used references adequate and enough to support the discussion in the text or to position the work with regards to researches developed in the area?

 

Quality of the text in Portuguese/English: if the text is not correctly written, presents in inadequate language or has grammar errors, the reviewer does not need to perform the correction – however, point these aspects clearly in the evaluation.

 

Besides, other important aspects must be observed in the review, such as:

  • If the article is based in previous researches, are they properly referenced?
  • Are the used pictures and tables legible, relevant and consistent (scales and standardized measures etc)?
  •  Ethical issues:
    • Plagiarism: if you suspect this article has substantial parts that are copies from another work, please report to the editor, quoting as many details as possible.
    • Fraud: report to the editor if you suspect the results in the article are not true.
    • Researches involving humans or animals: is there an opinion by the ethics committee? Is the information about the people involved in the research (voluntaries/patients) kept classified or being published with the proper authorization?

 

FORWARDING THE RESULT OF THE EVALUATION TO THE EDITOR

When you complete your evaluation, please write a report with your considerations to the authors and editors – in an on-line evaluation form (the evaluation form is filled at the SGP). The report must contain considerations about the elements previously described and/or other elements that you consider important. Try to properly support the considerations and, whenever possible, make clear if the comments reflect just a personal opinion or if they are based on research results or on other works published in literature – the right to rebut possible criticism is ensured to authors.

 

After you finished the analysis and the report, finish your evaluation selecting one of the following recommendations to the editor (in a proper form):

 

  1. The article may be accepted without any modifications.

The acceptance attests that the manuscript contains elements of quality that justified its publication in a scientific magazine. Thereby, it must represent an original contribution, with enough content to build a scientific article. Its broascast must contribute to expand the knowledge on Health Sciences and Health Policy.

 

  1. The article may be accepted after little modifications – without demanding a new review.

The acceptance for publication by little modifications without demanding a new review applies to cases that little adjustments, indicated in the review (graphical, grammar or formatting errors, information duplication or omission of some reference), make the text more complete, but do not interfere in central questions and do not involve omission of text or citations that may result in additional discussion when incorporated to the text.

 

  1. The article may be accepted after substantial modifications – it demands a new review.

The possible acceptance by substantial modifications and conditioned to a new review must be the option when there are suggestions for text reduction or inclusion of theoretical or experimental results or inclusion of other articles relevant to answer apparent questions or to complement the discussion. Texts that present important errors that may be corrected, serious difficulty of comprehension and inadequate presentation of information about materials, methods and mathematical formulations are also in this category.

 

  1. The article must be featured as a Technical Communication.

If the work does not fit as a complete article according to the previously approached aspects, but allows professionals of that area to benefit from the ingenuity and creativity of their colleagues, the reviewer may suggest reducing it to “Brief Communication and Preliminary Note”. Such communications make an important way to disseminate solutions for problems of project, maintenance, experimental techniques and computer applications.

 

  1. The article must be rejected.

The recommendation for article rejection is applied when it does not present quality for publication. Although it involves subjectivity, this decision may not be justified by contestation, as for example: (i) duplication of a work already published; (ii) discover of a theoretical, analytical or procedure error that invalidates the presented results and conclusions; (iii) important contradictory results in the work itself or related to other publications, without presenting a careful discussion about the discrepancies; (iv) absence of enough new information in comparison with recently published articles; (v) results of technical procedures or routine tests that may be performed haphazardly of scientific qualifications; (vi) content naturally factious, commercial, promotional, etc.

 

  1. The article is indicated for publication in another journal.

Particularly, the rejection must be avoided when there are no capital failures that may be outlined or only due to differences of opinion about the best approach of a theme in controversial fields, such as the choice of a model, way of processing, etc. Relevant articles, but with no affinity to Health Science and Health Policy, must be classified at the option that recommends the publication in another journal.

 

On behalf of SALUS Journal of Health Sciences, the Editorial Board thanks you for your important collaboration and is available for any clarification or demanded assistance.

 

2017 - SALUS JOURNAL - All rights reserved