Table 1.
Author Helpful Policy (adapted from Marusic and Marusic15).
| Journal Activity | Policy | Benefit to authors |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-review | ||
| Author guidelines | Comprehensive but clear details for different types of article | Clear instruction are especially important for first-time authors |
| Commission articles | Commissioned from senior authors (offering an expert viewpoint) and sometimes from junior authors as well (offering a different, often frontline, viewpoint) | Commissioned junior authors will be mentored |
| Review | ||
| Editorial review process | Editors will help authors to improve their report before peer review if appropriate | Enables peer reviewers to focus on giving useful review and learning points |
| Peer review | Manuscripts will be reviewed on the basis of whether they are relevant and technically sound, rather than on interest or popularity | Authors do not need to worry about gauging the potential popularity of their paper but can focus on methodological rigour and sound analysis; key skills for the developing author |
| Timescale | We aim for 28 days from submission to decision | Waiting for decisions is frustrating Rapid decision time allows junior authors to build momentum in their early career and encourages new thinking |
| Rejection, revisions and author feedback | Rejection occurs only if the core concept or methodology is not technically sound or lacking relevance | Every submission will be a valuable learning experience, whether accepted or otherwise |
| Even if major revisions are needed, we will give sufficient structured feedback to improve the manuscript and encourage resubmission. We will also support the author through the re-writing process | Authors will receive active support and feedback from the journal |