Paediatrics & Child Health appreciates the work and dedication of all its volunteer peer reviewers. It is through their thoughtful assessments of submitted manuscripts that the journal can meet its mission of advocacy and education.
In Canada, peer reviewers can earn:
- Maintenance of Certification credits from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
- Maintenance of Proficiency credits from the College of Family Physicians of Canada
A manuscript submitted to Paediatrics & Child Health goes through an editorial checklist before it is assigned to an editor. Provided the paper is suitable for the journal, at least two external reviewers are invited to review the submission. Reviewers are asked to disqualify themselves if they have any conflict of interest (defined as any financial relationship that relates in any way to the content of the manuscript or any personal relationship with one of the authors that others might think could obscure their judgment). Once they accept the invitation, they have three weeks to complete and submit the score sheet. The editor considers the feedback and makes the final decision to reject, accept or recommend revisions. The same reviewers may be asked to confirm that the revised manuscript appropriately addresses their initial concerns.
What to include in your review
The Editors want to know whether a manuscript advances knowledge and understanding of the subject matter appropriately for its broad readership.
The score sheet asks reviewers to:
- provide their overall impression of the manuscript,
- rate the manuscript, using a sliding scale (poor to excellent) for interest to readers , originality, composition and scientific accuracy,
- make a recommendation to reject, accept, accept with minor or major revisions, and
- suggest areas that need improvement.
Editors believe that feedback should be shared with the authors whenever possible.
Confidential comments for the editors: Use this area only for comments of a particularly delicate or controversial nature that should not be seen by the authors. A frank comment that summarizes your honest opinion of what should happen with the manuscript belongs here.
Comments that may be of help to the authors: Use this area to convey specific feedback to the author. Although it is usefulto point out grammatical errors, the emphasis should be on content and the flow of the manuscript. It often works well to divide your comments into “Major concerns” and “Minor concerns”.
Editors consider your recommendation before making a decision. Almost all manuscripts require at least minor revisions.
Choose Reject if you suspect plagiarism, or if it is your impression that this manuscript is unlikely to ever meet the following three criteria:
- Of interest to a significant number of general paediatricians and family physicians who care for children and youth.
- Adds something new to the literature or presents information in a novel format appealing to physicians who care for children.
- Contains at least one practical take-home point for the reader.
Choose Accept with major revision if you believe the manuscript could potentially fulfill the above criteria with extensive revisions.
Choose Accept with minor revision if the manuscript fulfills the above criteria and requires only revisions that an author can easily address.
- Hoppin FG Jr. How I Review an Original Scientific Article. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(8):1019-23
- Nature, Peer-review policy
- Elsevier, Reviewer guidelines