Information for Reviewers

All IJPHM reviewers must observe the code of conduct provided by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). Brief guidelines on IJPHM policy and publication ethics are provided here.
The review process is as follows:

  1. Following an email invitation by a member of the Editorial Board to review a paper for the International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, you will be directed by a link to the appropriate page and review form, where you can accept to review the paper or decline. In the latter case, you may indicate the name of an appropriate reviewer. Providing this suggestion is very much appreciated.
  2. IJPHM does not use double-blind review. The reviewers are never known to the authors, but the authors are always known to the reviewers. In this way, the paper does not hide relevant aspects (e.g., references to other papers by the same authors) that may be helpful for a balanced and fully informed review.
  3. The paper review procedure involves a recommendation prepared by the Associate Editor on the basis of peer reviews. The final decision on publication, sustaining or modifying this recommendation, is taken by the Editor handling the paper.
  4. Please respect the deadline. As an author, you undoubtedly appreciate the importance of minimizing delays.
  5. Please provide detailed comments to the authors so as to support your recommendation. The following points are suggested for your comments:
    • What is the contribution of the paper?
    • Does the author explain the significance of this paper?
    • Is the paper clearly written and well organized?
    • Does the introduction state the purpose of the paper?
    • Are the references relevant and complete? Supply missing references.
    • If the paper is not technically sound, why not?
    • If the paper is too long, how can it be shortened?

    Please supply any information that you think will be useful to the author for a revision, for enhancing the appeal of the paper, or for convincing him/her of the weak points or mistakes.

  6. Do not identify yourself or your organization within the review text. The reviewer's recommendation for acceptance or rejection should not be included in the comments to the author.
  7. In your critical comments to author, please be specific. If you find that the results are already known, please give references to earlier papers which contain these or similar results. If you say that the reasoning is incorrect or vague, please indicate specifically where and why. If you suggest that the paper be rewritten, give specific suggestions as to which parts of the paper should be deleted, amplified or modified, and please indicate how.
  8. Upon completion of the review process of a paper, access to the Editor decision and to all anonymous reviews will be available through online review system for the reviewers of the paper.
  
 
 
 

follow us

PHM Society on Facebook Follow PHM Society on Twitter PHM Society on LinkedIn PHM Society RSS News Feed