Resources 

Introductory resources for peer reviewers can be found on Cambridge Core here.

Ethics

Guidance on ethical peer review can be found on Cambridge Core here.

Specific Peer Review Process

First and foremost this is a collaborative partnership to achieve the objectives of the journal and the authors with respect to scientific writing.  

Upon electronic receipt the manuscript will be reviewed for:

• Compliance with the DMPHP Scope; a manuscript maybe rejected with an explanation to seek a more appropriate journal
• Compliance with the submitted “Type of Article” category; a manuscript maybe returned to the authors with a recommendation to submit to a more appropriate DMPHP article category.
• Compliance with the Instructions for Authors; an article maybe rejected or returned to the authors to comply.
• Grammar and spelling; an article maybe rejected or returned to the authors with a recommendation to seek professional English medical writing assistance before further review.

The Managing Editor or Editor-in Chief will assign an appropriate manuscript to a Deputy Editor for an initial review who will assign the manuscript to an Associate Editor to supervise the review process. 

Each submitted manuscript (except a Letter to the Editor) is reviewed by a minimum of 2 peer reviewers this may be any combination of reviewers from the DMPHP panel, Associate or Deputy Editor. A Letter to the Editor will be reviewed at the discretion of the Editors.

If warranted, the submission will also be sent for statistical review.

The Associate Editor will complete their review and forward this to the Deputy Editor for a consensus review. The Deputy Editor will notify the corresponding author of this consensus decision.

If the Associate Editor and Deputy Editor do not reach consensus then the Editor-in-Chief,  another Deputy Editor or member of the Editorial Board will be the arbiter to bring the review to consensus. Then the Deputy Editor will notify the corresponding author of this decision.

• Reject: with an explanation if appropriate
• Revise:
  • To remain as the submitted Type of Article
  • As another Type of Article with explanation
  • Note that acceptance is not guaranteed depending on the progress of the revisions, as the editorial process with subsequent revisions may not meet the burden of acceptance.
• Accept:
  • With reviewer comments, or, explanations to enhance the manuscript to meet the burden of acceptance
  • The review process and revisions may continue depending on the progress of the revisions with continued attention by the Editors and reviewers
• Accept production files needed (final acceptance)

This process will repeat until Accept-production files needed or rejection.

The author may suggest names of three potential reviewers and the identities of peer reviewers are kept confidential.