Peer Review Process

Submissions to the Journal will be peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers, one of whom may be a member of the Editorial team. Submissions will be judged on originality, academic merit, importance to the field, and the quality of the manuscript. The Journal aims to complete the peer-review process within 2 weeks of original submission, except in the case of perspective and opinion articles which will undergo accelerated peer-review with a turnaround of 1 week to ensure timely publication. Reviewers are recruited from the body of critical care experts worldwide, augmented by clinicians from other disciplines as required and invited external reviewers who may be of national or international standing. The Journal reserves the right to assess submissions using plagiarism detection systems.

There are several types of peer-review process. In open peer review, the identity of authors and peer reviewers is known to both parties. In traditional single-blind peer review, the reviewers know the identity of the authors but the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. In double-blind peer review, the identities of authors and reviewers are known only to the editorial team.

The standard Journal peer review process is single-blind. The Journal will facilitate double-blind peer review at the request of an author. In this case, the author should ensure that they remove all personal and institutional identifiers from their manuscript text and from their document metadata (see instructions here). It is the responsibility of authors to ensure that this process is completed accurately. An additional file containing the title page with author and institution identifiers in place will be required along with the main manuscript.

The peer-review process is a constructive one, aimed at optimising the quality of the manuscript and providing useful feedback to authors. Reviews are subjected to quality assurance monitoring.

 

Last updated: June 12, 2016 at 22:35 pm