Users guide to the Bulletin
The Bulletin's appeal process:
The editorial team of the Bulletin recognizes authors' rights to appeal editorial decisions at any stage. Authors who wish to submit appeals of manuscripts that have been rejected without external review should first consult this list of reasons for rejection to make sure that they have a good case for making an appeal. If you wish to appeal the rejection of your paper, please write a detailed letter explaining why we should reconsider, with a point-by-point rebuttal of any reviewer's criticisms provided, and send it to email@example.com. This appeal request will be sent to the editor who originally handled your paper. We will discuss all appeals at an editorial meeting, and decide upon one of two potential courses of action, by consensus:
- Your appeal is upheld, and we agree to send your paper for further external review, (when necessary), and/or you are invited to revise your paper further. If your paper has already had one or more rounds of external peer review, we will require a revised manuscript that accounts for the reviewers' comments. In this case, you will receive a letter requesting you to upload a revised manuscript under the previous file number. Please note that a final decision will not have been made at this point regarding eventual publication, but your paper is back in the workflow for consideration.
- Your appeal is rejected, and the editor concerned will write you a letter explaining the reasons for this decision.
We generally only consider one appeal per paper, and you can increase your chances having your appeal upheld by supplying as much detail as possible in your request. We aim to let you know whether your appeal will be upheld or not, within four weeks of receipt of your letter.
Do you want to review a paper for the Bulletin?
Send your details to the Bulletin.
If you accept the invitation to review a paper, and would like to know where to start, this is what we would like to hear from you:
- Did you find this paper useful, timely and important?
- Useful reviews provide a good indication of the novelty, relevance, and methodological worth of a paper - it usually takes more than one reviewer to get a clear indication of all of these facets of a paper. Constructive criticism is by far the greatest service that a reviewer can provide to authors, and we strive to make peer review a positive learning process for all involved. Reviewers are given access to other reviews of the paper when a final decision has been reached. To acknowledge the considerable effort that goes into writing reviews, we publish a list of all the reviewers in the December issue of the Bulletin.
Do you want to comment on a paper in the Bulletin?
Read our tips and hints for reviewers.
- CONSORT for reports of randomized controlled trials http://www.consort-statement.org.
- TREND for reports of non-randomized tests of interventions http://www.ajph.org/chi/content/full/94/3/361.
- STARD for studies of diagnostic accuracy, MOOSE for meta-analysis of observational studies, and QUOROM for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials http://www.consort-statement.org/News/news.html.
- Clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies should follow guidelines http://www.gpp-guidelines.org, and all human trials that are phase 2a and above must be registered with a clinical trial registry.
- UN-approved maps http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/English/htmain.htm.
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ICMJE - Vancouver guidelines http://www.icmje.org/index.html.
- Declaration of Helsinki http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm.
- Committee on Publication Ethics http://www.publicationethics.org.uk.