Privacy of unpublished results
An unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Do not cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published and do not use the information that it contains for the advancement of your own research or in discussion with colleagues.
Do not discuss the manuscript with its authors unless permission has been granted by the Editors. Although it may seem natural and reasonable to discuss points of difficulty or disagreement directly with the author, especially if you are generally in favour of publication and do not mind revealing your identity, this practice is prohibited because the other referee(s) and the Editors may have different opinions, and the author may be misled by having ‘cleared things up’ with the referee who contacted him/her directly.
Reviews should be completed within 14 days. If you know that you cannot finish the review within that time, please contact the Editorial Assistant immediately. In addition, if you believe that you cannot judge a given article impartially because of previous contact with the authors or a possible conflict of interest, please return it immediately with an explanation.
The review should give your overall impression of the manuscript, and list the major shortcomings. Please consider the following aspects in particular:
- The novelty of the work, and whether there is sufficient originality and substance to be worthy of publication
- The articulation of the rationale or hypothesis
- The quality of the analysis
- The interpretation of results
- Awareness (cogent discussion) of the relevant research (local and international)
Further points for consideration:
- Do you expect the results to have a high impact in this field?
- Do the data obtained verify the hypotheses and conclusions?
- Is the work experimentally and/or theoretically sound?
- Is the work sufficiently complete for publication? If not, what further work would you recommend be carried out before the work is published?
- Is the title appropriate?
- How could the presentation be improved?
- Is the English expression sufficient that the author´s reasoning can be clearly followed?
- Is the format consistent with that outlined in the Instructions to Authors?
- Are all figures and tables necessary or would they be more suitable for lodgement as accessory material?
- Is the number and selection of references appropriate?
- Have ethical practices been followed where applicable?
It would be helpful to the Editor to comment on unnecessary length and to point out figures and tables that have secondary importance and could be presented as Supplementary Material.
You are not requested to correct deficiencies of style or mistakes in grammar, but any help you can give in clarifying meaning will be appreciated (track changes can expedite the editing process; a MS Word file, in addition to the PDF, is available in ScholarOne by accessing the Manuscript Files tab). The copy-editing staff employed by Sexual Health will edit each accepted manuscript. It is their function to polish and correct the grammar, syntax, and spelling and to enforce the editorial style of the journal. However, be on the lookout for errors that the copy-editors might miss. Examples are misspellings of locations, use of outmoded terminology, misspelled names, and inappropriate scientific jargon.
What happens next?
When you open ScholarOne Manuscripts to submit your report, you will be offered some questions with a check box. The answers to these are for the use of the Editors, and are not conveyed directly to the authors. The most important are the first and last: the quality of the manuscript and your recommendation.
Keep a copy of the review in your files. If you have recommended ´major revision´, the revised manuscript may be returned to you for further comment.