Editorial Policies and Procedures

All submissions to CommonHealth will be screened by at least one of the Editors-in-Chief. Manuscripts of sufficient quality subsequently will be reviewed by members of the Editorial Board or other expert reviewers. At the discretion of the Editors-in-Chief, the submission may be returned immediately without a full review, if deemed not competitive or outside the scope of the Journal. Acceptance of submissions is based on the originality of the observation or investigation, the quality of the work described, the clarity of presentation, and the relevance to our readership.

The journal operates a double-blind peer-review process. Authors do not know the peer reviewers, and peer reviewers do not know the authors of the papers they are reviewing. The journal maintains a pool of peer reviewers with varied content and methodological expertise. Selected peer reviewers receive an email invitation containing a response link. Reviewers are able to view the article’s abstract before accepting or declining the review. Reviewers are generally asked to provide their assessment within 30 calendar days. If the invitation is declined or the link is not clicked by the response due date (2-week window), the reviewer will be removed from the request queue for this article, and the next selected peer reviewer will be sent an invitation. The reviewer may decline a review due to a conflict of interest at any point during the process.

Once the review files are accessed, the reviewer assesses the manuscript and submits their recommendation, comments for the author(s), and/or confidential comments for the editor. The decision recommendation is selected from a drop-down menu; comments can be entered directly into the fields provided or uploaded as an attachment. Papers are typically reviewed by two reviewers and may receive additional assessment by the handling editor and/or Editors-in-Chief.

Reviewer Guidelines

The purpose of the review is to provide the editors with an expert opinion regarding the validity and quality of the manuscript under consideration. The review may also supply authors with feedback on how to improve their papers, if needed.

Some key points to keep in mind before you start:

• Make sure you can meet the deadline.
• Make sure you do not have a conflict of interest. An example of a conflict of interest is when the reviewer is a member of the author’s thesis/dissertation committee. If in doubt, the reviewers are encouraged to share any potential conflicts with editors by answering the respective question in the editorial system.
• Have a positive attitude and be supportive.
• Take your time and follow a systematic process, answering the following questions:
  • Is the manuscript understandable?
  • Is there a clear aim, research question, or purpose behind the work?
  • Are sections presented and discussed clearly and completely?
  • Are there any contradictions apparent throughout the manuscript? Does the discussion and/or results support the authors’ conclusions?
  • Are supplementary materials (tables, figures, charts, etc.) appropriate?
• To familiarize yourself with the specific requirements for each submission type, please review the journal’s Author Guidelines.

Some key points to keep in mind as you write your review:

• Provide positive feedback on the manuscript before diving into any suggestions for improvement. In doing so, you may comment on the manuscript’s significance, originality, strengths, quality, and completeness.
• When providing feedback or suggestions, ensure your comments are constructive and keep the feedback focused on the manuscript and not the author.
• In general, it is best to write in a clear manner, number your points, and reference page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments.
• Do not discriminate because of poor English; a scientific writing service can be recommended to the authors.
• Your review should contain the following:
  • A brief summary outlining the manuscript’s contributions and strengths.
  • Detailed feedback on the article itself, highlighting suggestions for improvement if you are so inclined. Please use specific comments that reference page and line numbers in the manuscript, if possible.
  • Overall recommendation (this will be shared with the CommonHealth Editors-in-Chief only).

Please utilize the below rubric when conducting your review. The rubric is merely a guide to enhance your review of works submitted to CommonHealth. It is not designed as a template that must be filled out for every article you review nor is it designed to be the deciding factor in whether or not an article goes to publication. Rather, the rubric can be used as a teaching tool by faculty or staff who are newer to the review process.  

Reviewer Rubric

To access a PDF of the reviewer rubric, please follow this link.