Healthy Skepticism Library item: 13858

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: Journal Article

Kelsall DL.
Editor’s response
Can Fam Physician 2008 Jun; 54:(6):850 - 851
http://www.cfp.ca/cgi/content/full/54/6/850?etoc

Full text:

Reviewing and preparing an article for publication is a multilayered process. Here are some of the steps:

Step 1: When a paper is submitted to Canadian Family Physician (CFP), it undergoes initial review by the CFP Manuscript Coordinator to determine if the paper includes all the required information (as per author guidelines found on the CFP website at www.cfp.ca, under “Authors”).

Step 2: The article is reviewed by the Editor and assigned to the appropriate Associate Editor.

Step 3: The Associate Editor undertakes an in-depth review of the submission and recommends if the paper should go on for further review or if it should be rejected.

Step 4: Depending on the type of paper (eg, research, clinical reviews, case reports), manuscripts will be submitted for peer review (usually to 2 to 5 peer reviewers).

Step 5: Some manuscripts will also undergo an in-depth assessment by a statistical reviewer.

Step 6: The Associate Editor makes a recommendation for either revisions or rejection, based on the peer review (if applicable), to the Editor, who reviews the paper and results of the peer review. A final decision is made.

Step 7: If a paper is returned to the author for revisions, the revised paper will undergo at least 2 more reviews at CFP. Some papers will also be sent out for another round of peer review, depending on the nature of the revisions.

Step 8: Once an article is accepted for publication, it is reviewed and edited by our in-house manuscript editors.

Step 9: When the in-house editorial process has been completed, the author(s) will have an opportunity to review the edited manuscript (galleys).

Step 10: A final proofread of the manuscript takes place before publication.

Despite these many steps, sometimes mistakes are made. Dr Lexchin and colleagues correctly point out that there were several incompletely substantiated statements made in Dr Sharma’s article. That is why the review process does not end at publication. Readers have an opportunity to participate in post-publication review, as Dr Lexchin and his colleagues have done.

The Rapid Response feature on the CFP website allows readers to comment positively and negatively on the content of the journal. Readers can report errors or omissions, clarify specific points, and add pertinent information from the literature. By participating in an on-line discussion of individual articles, readers and CFP staff can work together to improve the journal in particular, and contribute to the advancement of medical knowledge in general.

The Rapid Response feature can be accessed by using the Rapid Response button found on the journal’s homepage or in the menu at the top right-hand side of each on-line article.

Find a mistake? Let us know. Enjoy an article? We like to hear that too.