All new manuscripts should be submitted via ScholarOne Manuscripts.
Australian Health Review provides information for decision makers in the healthcare industry. It is read by healthcare professionals, managers, planners and policy makers throughout Australia and the region. Topics covered by Australian Health Review include all aspects of health policy and management, healthcare delivery systems, clinical programs, health financing and other matters of interest to those working in health care.
- Publishing Policies
- Peer review
- Licence to publish
- Open access
- Journal editorial policy
- Ethics Approval
- Submission and preparation of manuscripts
- General presentation
- Use of inclusive language
- Types of Papers
- Abstract and Online Short Summary
- Manuscript Text
- Data Availability Statement
- Conflicts of interest
- Declaration of Funding
- References and Citations
- Peer Review
- Page Proofs
- How to Write a Case Study
- How to Write a Perspective
Australian Health Review insists on high standards of ethical behaviour throughout the publication process. Our journal editors work within the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Further information on our policies can be found at http://www.publish.csiro.au/ah/PublishingPolicies.
Australian Health Review is a peer-reviewed journal that uses a double-blind peer-review. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible to maintain high-quality peer-review of papers submitted to the journal and works together with the Associate Editors and an Editorial Advisory Board to ensure a thorough and fair peer-review and the highest scientific publishing standards. All submissions undergo preliminary assessment by the Editor-in-Chief, who may reject a paper before peer review when it is outside the journal’s scope or is of insufficient quality. Associate Editors select reviewers and after at least two review reports are received, they make the decision whether to accept/reject or send a manuscript for revision. The final decision is made by the Associate Editor.
The conditions around authorship for Australian Health Review should follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), for more information see http://www.publish.csiro.au/ah/PublishingPolicies.
Journal editorial policy
Authors should obtain the appropriate clearances from their directors or supervisors before submission.
Manuscripts submitted to Australian Health Review must be offered exclusively to the Journal and must conform with the Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Submission of an article implies that it has not been previously published, is not being considered for publication elsewhere, and that the contents are original. If a submitted article overlaps considerably with previously published articles or articles submitted elsewhere, copies of these should be included with the submitted manuscript.
Note: Do not include author-identifying information in your manuscript. The manuscript you submit online will (if appropriate) be forwarded to peer reviewers. Australian Health Review uses double-blind peer review, in which reviewers are not told the identity of the authors. To preserve blinding, your manuscript should not contain author-identifying information, such as a list of authors and contact addresses or acknowledgments in the body of the manuscript; these should be listed on a separate title page.
Australian Health Review subscribes to the criteria for authorship as outlined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those that qualify should be listed. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. At least one author, ‘corresponding author’, should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, from inception to published article. Authorship credit should be based only on (a) substantial contributions to conception and design or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, (b) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and (c) final approval of the version to be published. Distinction must be made between those who contributed as authors and those who should be named in Acknowledgements. If there is a very large number of authors we may ask for confirmation that everyone listed met the ICMJE criteria for authorship.
Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to use figures and tables previously published in other books or journals. It is also the responsibility of the authors to check reproduced materials against the original for accuracy.
For studies involving people, medical records, and human tissues, the Australian Health Review requires authors to document that a formally constituted review board (Institutional Review Board or Ethics committee) has granted approval for the research to be done.
Investigators who do not have access to an institutional review board are required to provide a statement to the editor outlining why it was not possible to gain formal ethics approval. If the study is judged exempt from review, a statement from the committee is required. Informed consent by participants or guardians should always be sought. If this is not possible, an institutional review board must decide if this is ethically acceptable.
Investigators who do not have access to an institutional review board are required to provide a statement outlining why it was not possible to gain formal ethics approval. They should follow the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki regarding human experimentation, and make a statement attesting that these principles were followed while conducting the research.
Authors are required to make their statement about ethics approval in the cover letter, which will be seen only by the editorial team. The statement will not be provided to reviewers. Authors are free to decide whether or not to make a statement about ethics approval in the manuscript itself. It should be noted, however, that for most studies involving people, medical records, and human tissues, reviewers and readers will expect to see a statement about formal ethics approval.
CSIRO Publishing also follows CSIRO’s own guidelines on ethical human research.
Submission and preparation of manuscripts
To submit your paper, please use our online journal management system ScholarOne Manuscripts, which can be reached directly through this link or from the link on the journal´s homepage. If a first-time user, register via the ´Register here´ link, or use your existing username and password to log in. Then click on the ´Author Centre´ link and proceed.
All submissions should be accompanied by a title page telling us the full name, highest academic qualification, position/job title, and institutional affiliation(s) with address for each author, as well as any ethics approval, data availability, conflicts of interest, declaration of funding and acknowledgements that may spoil double-blind review. Please include a word count for the abstract as well as for the manuscript (introduction through to conclusion, not including table/figure text). Information should be provided as shown in this template. We recommend including a covering letter that offers a justification for publication.
ScholarOne requires authors to list at least two potential referees, which the Editors may take into consideration if sending the manuscript out for peer review. Do not include any names of current or recent collaborators, members of your own research institution/group or other people who could be viewed as not impartial to your research outputs. Potential reviewers should be expert in some aspect of your research, which should be highlighted in your submission.
Submissions should be double-spaced with ample margins. All pages of the manuscript must contain line numbering to aid the referees in their task. Number all pages consecutively. Ensure that the abstract is included in the main document.
Please note: We encourage you to have your paper proofread by an independent person before submitting it to the Journal. Please be aware that if the writing in your paper lacks clarity in its expression, or would be difficult for a reader to understand, and/or is not suitably scholarly, it will be returned to you for revision before going for peer review. Please also be aware that making these revisions does not guarantee acceptance after peer review.
The paper should be presented clearly and concisely in English. The title should reflect the key points of interest in the paper. A minimum of eight keywords are recommended to increase article discoverability via online searches. Think about how readers might search for your work when including keywords. Words used in the title can be repeated, but we recommend also adding additional keywords that do not already appear in the title.
Article content should be structured according to the type of submission (see Types of Papers section). For scientific papers the following headings should be used: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, and References. Do not use ‘methodology’, unless it is in relation to the philosophical underpinning of the research. References should include seminal articles related to the topic.
Please refer to the current Australian Government Style Manual for anything not covered in the sections below. Particular attention should be paid to:
Use of inclusive language
These guidelines should be used to assist in identifying appropriate language, but are by no means exhaustive or definitive. Inclusive language comprises carefully chosen words and phrases that are respectful and promote the acceptance and value of all people. It is language which is free from words, phrases or tones that demean, insult, exclude, stereotype, or trivialise people on the basis of their membership of a certain group or because of a particular attribute. As such, inclusive language should make no assumptions about the beliefs or commitments of any reader, and contain nothing which might imply that one individual is superior to another on any grounds including but not limited to: age, gender, race, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, disability or health condition.
We encourage the use of plural nouns (e.g., ‘they’ as default wherever possible instead of ‘he/she’), and recommend avoiding the use of descriptors that refer to personal attributes, unless there is scientific or clinical relevance. For further guidance on inclusive language see Inclusive language | Style Manual. If there are questions about language use and/or publishing with regards to First Nations Peoples, please contact the Journal.
Types of Papers
Please identify your paper as one of the following. The word length specified is of the abstract plus body of text and does not count text in tables, figure captions, or references.
An Article in Australian Health Review should present a thorough analysis of a topic, including review and results of new work by you, plus discussion and interpretation. Articles should be limited to a maximum of 2,500 words.
A novel view on a topical issue of broad interest, explore significant questions, examine the validity of current views in the field, and recommend directions for future research (see How to Write a Perspective). Perspectives should be limited to 1000 words.
- Case Study
Case Studies describe and analyse a typical policy or management issue or situation, the development of a new service, program or model of care (see How to Write a Case Study). The main purpose of a Case Study is to teach – to share knowledge and experiences with others – so it is important that authors draw on their experiences, good and bad, and highlight lessons for policy and practice. Case Studies should be no more than 2000 words.
- Letter to the Editor
Letters give commentary or opinion, usually a response to an item in a previous issue of Australian Health Review or related to current events. Letters should be limited to 500 words.
Abstract and Online Short Summary
All longer papers (Article, Perspective, Case Study) require a <250 word abstract outlining the key message of the article, its implications and supporting evidence. Abstracts should be clear and succinct, covering the purpose, research method, main findings (including statistical significance if relevant), and principal conclusions. As a general rule, avoid including citations in the abstract.
Structured abstracts are required for Articles; abstracts for Perspectives and Case Studies should be unstructured; a Letter to the Editor does not require an abstract. Headings in a structured abstract include:
- Objective: State the main question or objective of the study and the major hypothesis tested, if any.
- Methods: Describe the design of the study indicating, as appropriate, use of randomization, blinding, criterion standards for diagnostic tests, temporal direction (retrospective or prospective), and so on.
- Results: Describe measurements that are not evident from the nature of the main results and indicate any blinding. If meaningful, the results should be accompanied by confidence intervals (most often the 95% interval) and level of statistical significance. For comparative studies confidence intervals should relate to the differences between groups.
- Conclusions: State only those conclusions of the study that are directly supported by data or whether additional study is required before the information should be used. Equal emphasis must be given to positive and negative findings of equal scientific merit.
For all papers, except Letter to the Editor, authors are asked to provide an Online Short Summary. This summary should answer the following three questions, using one short sentence for each answer: ‘What is known about the topic?’; ‘What does this paper add?’; and ‘What are the implications for practitioners?’ Supply no more than 100 words (including the questions). It should be aimed at interested non-experts, to engage the reader.
The Methods section should clearly state how the study was carried out. The reader should have a clear idea about the research design and how it was applied to answer the research question or hypothesis. The setting, subjects, and tools should also be elucidated.
Results describe the findings. These should not be repeated or introduced elsewhere, and discussion of results should be reserved for the Discussion section. The presentation of results (text, tables, or illustrations) is important. The purpose of graphs and tables is to supplement the text and provide a concise overview of the results. Graphs or tables should serve a purpose, and be clear and easy to understand.
The Discussion describes the significance of the results, including new and important findings. Discussion should be pertinent and concise, including the implications of the findings, limitations, and implications. The author may interpret the results, express opinions, speculate about the significance of the results and may compare them with those of other studies. No new information should be introduced and it is important to avoid repetition.
Statements made in the Conclusion should be derived from and supported by the findings in the study. They should relate to the goals of the study, clearly communicating the answer to the research question and how the work has contributed to new knowledge (or validated previous findings). Recommendations can be included if appropriate.
Editable tables should be prepared in Word using the 'Table' tool (not tabs), without any hard returns within cells, or can be set up in Excel. Number each table and refer to it in the text (Table 1, Table 2, etc.) in order of appearance. There is no need to add instructions on the placement of tables as long as each table is referred to in the text. Do not provide tables as images.
Table titles should be concise and clear and should fully explain the table. Use sentence case throughout the table. Supporting information relating to the whole table and definitions for any symbols, abbreviations or acronyms used in the table should be included as table footnotes. Additional information relating to specific cells should be placed as table footnotes using superscript capital letters as identifiers. Symbols for units of measurement should be placed in parentheses beneath the column heading.
Tables should appear at the end of the main document, not within the text. Keep tables as simple as possible, without excessive subdivision of column headings.
Figures should be supplied as separate files but the captions should be included in the main document (at the end). Refer to each figure in the text (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, etc.), and number each figure according to the order in which it appears in the text. There is no need to add instructions on placement of figures as long as each figure is referred to in the text. If your figure has multiple parts label with (a), (b), (c), etc. and place the labels in the top left of each image where possible. Figure parts can be supplied as separate images if needed. Please make sure all images are supplied are at highest possible resolution.
Where possible, line diagrams (graphs, charts, etc.) should be provided as editable files and prepared using either a graphics or chart/graph program such as MacDraw, Illustrator, CorelDraw, Excel, Sigmaplot, Harvard Graphics or Cricket Graph and files should be saved in one of the following formats: encapsulated PostScript (EPS), Illustrator or Excel (provided the Excel files have been saved with the chart encapsulated in it). The submission of scanned images or illustrations prepared in a paint program, e.g. Photoshop (and PICT and JPEG files) is discouraged, because of the difficulty in making editorial corrections to these files. If illustrations must be created in a paint program, save the file as a TIFF or EPS (these files should be 600 dpi for line drawings and 300 dpi for halftone figures). Photographs should be supplied in the highest resolution possible.
Please prepare figures using a standard sans serif font. Arial preferred. Font sizes for main axis labels, part labels should not be more than 8pt. Legends and data points should be 7pt font size where possible. Font should never be smaller than 5pt to ensure readability.
- Use sentence case for text within figures
- Use Australian English spelling (ise, not ize, etc.) throughout
- Use 'and' not '&'
- For ranges in numbers (5–10) or minus signs (–20) please use an en rule rather than a hyphen as this is clearer for the reader.
Should be prepared with one main x and y axis line. Grid lines are not required. Line weight of x- and y-axes should be ~1.0 (not below 0.7). State on the axes of the graph what is being measured and give the appropriate units in parentheses. Ensure any symbols/colours used are explained in a legend on the figure, or in the caption. Ensure numbers on axes have the same number of decimal places.
Ensure that permission has been gained by the copyright holder of the photograph and include a photographer credit in your caption. If your photograph contains people, please ensure that they have provided permission for their image to be published.
Captions should be concise and clear and should fully explain the figure. Explain any symbols or abbreviations used in the caption of the figure, or in a legend. If your figure has multiple parts, ensure each part is explained in the caption. If your figure is a photograph, ensure the photographer is credited in the caption.
If your figure files are too large for upload to ScholarOne please ensure you let CSIRO Publishing know as soon as your paper is accepted and an alternative transfer will be arranged. Note: Figures used in the final paper will be based on what is provided – if the quality is low in the original, it will remain low in the final publication.
Authors are responsible for obtaining prior permission from the copyright holder for the use of figures/images from other publications. Authors may be charged a fee by the copyright holder for such reuse.
Acknowledgements should be brief, and should be included in the title page (to prevent revealing your identity to the reviewers who see your manuscript). The contribution of colleagues who do not meet all criteria for authorship should be acknowledged. Anyone included in the Acknowledgements section should have granted permission to be listed. Sources of financial support should be acknowledged in a separate ‘Declaration of Funding’ rather than here. Where appropriate give credit to grantors, sponsors, technical assistants, and professional colleagues. If the work has been part of postgraduate studies, the university in which you were enrolled should be mentioned.
Data Availability Statement
CSIRO Publishing encourages authors to share the research data underlying their papers to support transparency and reproducibility of research. A Data Availability Statement must be included at the end of the manuscript indicating whether the data used to generate the results in the paper are available and, if so, where to access them. For more information on CSIRO Publishing’s data sharing policy and for examples of what to include in the data availability statement please see https://www.publish.csiro.au/journals/publishingpolicies#6.
Authors can get credit for their work by citing their research data in the reference list of their article. Citations should include at a minimum: all authors, year of publication, title of dataset, record ID, publisher. DOI or URL if available. Examples of how to cite research data:
1 Wang L, Edwards D, Bailey A, Carr L, Boreham C, Grosjean E, Anderson J, Jarrett A, MacFarlane S, Southby C, Carson C, Khider K, Palu T, Henson P. Well log data analysis and interpretation on the pre-Carboniferous succession in Waukarlycarly 1, Canning Basin, Western Australia. Record 2021/003 [Dataset]. Canberra: Geoscience Australia; 2021. Available at http://pid.geoscience.gov.au/dataset/ga/144547
2 Fiddes S, Pepler A, Saunders K, Hope P. Southern Australia’s climate regions (Version 1.0.0) [Dataset]. Zenodo; 2020. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4265471
3 Digital Earth Australia. Wetlands Insight Tool Queensland Wetlands Polygons. Version 1.0.0 [Dataset]. Canberra: Geoscience Australia; 2021. Available at http://pid.geoscience.gov.au/dataset/ga/144795
Conflicts of interest
We require a statement of conflicts of interest, included on the title page. Each author should declare the source of any financial or other support, and any financial or professional relationships which may pose a conflict and inappropriately influence their work. Authors should describe the role, if any, of the supporting source(s) in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, and in writing of the article. They should also state whether the supporting source(s) controlled or influenced the decision to submit the final manuscript for publication. If the supporting source(s) had no such involvement, this should be stated. If there are no conflicts of interest, authors should state that none exist.
Declaration of Funding
Under a subheading 'Declaration of Funding' at the end of the text authors are required to declare all sources of funding for the research and/or preparation of the article, and the inclusion of grant numbers is recommended. Authors should declare sponsor names along with explanations of the role of those sources if any in the preparation of the data or manuscript or the decision to submit for publication; or a statement declaring that the supporting source had no such involvement. If no funding has been provided for the research, please include the following sentence: "This research did not receive any specific funding".
References and Citations
Australian Health Review uses the Vancouver style of referencing. References are numbered consecutively in the order of first mention in the text, each reference is cited only once in the reference list and that number used for each relevant in-text citation, and citations appear as superscript numerals in the body of text. For example:
- The experiment by Abbot was inconclusive.1 Work by Friedel and Schmidt suggests that the effect is confined to older patients.2
Multiple sources may be cited at a single point in the text. The identifying numbers are separated by commas, without spaces. For example:
- The course of the disease is variously reported as lasting 3–6 months.3,6–9,12
References cited in tables or figure legends only, and do not appear in the body of text, should be numbered in accordance with the sequence established by the first citation of the particular table or figure in the body of text. For example:
- People with chronic and complex health issues frequently use hospitals or are at risk of hospitalisation.21 The key objectives of improving support systems for these people are listed in Table 1. [Any references appearing only in Table 1 would start from ‘22’]
References should only appear in the reference list once. In the reference list, references should be listed in numerical order (numbers not superscripted) and should use abbreviated journal names as in Index Medicus. Names of journals no longer published or not in Index Medicus should be given in full. Give surnames and initials of at least the first three authors of the reference, with the last-named author followed by a comma and ‘et al.’
Do not use headers and footers, automatic referencing or footnotes.
For examples of the style required for citing references, please refer to this document.
Use of abbreviations and acronyms is accepted. Please define at first mention in the abstract and at first mention in the body of text, thereafter the abbreviation can be used on its own. Make sure to use abbreviations consistently throughout your paper and do not start sentences and paragraphs with acronyms or abbreviations.
Abbreviations should only be used for terms that are repeated, they are not needed for terms that are only used once in your paper. Please note: the abbreviation ATSI (Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Peoples) must not be used.
The Australian Health Review uses double-blind peer review to maintain standards and ensure relevance. Not all material submitted is accepted. Each reviewer is provided with standard guidelines to focus his or her evaluation.
The time between submission of a manuscript and a decision by the editor regarding publication depends on the nature of the manuscript, and the availability and other commitments of the reviewer. The journal follows a standard protocol for administering the peer review process.
We will send page proofs to the corresponding author via an online editing platform. They must be returned within two working days of receipt to ensure timely publication of the journal and your research. Major alterations to the text and illustrations are accepted only when absolutely necessary and may be subject to approval from the Editor-in-Chief.
The publisher will provide a final version of the paper free of charge as a high-resolution PDF. Authors may purchase hard copies of their paper: information about reprints will be provided by the Production Editor at PDF proof stage.
All accepted manuscripts are subject to embargo until the day of publication. Manuscripts should not be made available to others, nor should any news reports about articles appear until the date of publication
How to Write a Case Study
Case Studies describe and analyse a typical policy or management issue or situation, the development of a new service, program or model of care. The main purpose of a Case Study is to teach – to share knowledge and experiences with others – so it is important that authors draw on their experiences, good and bad, and highlight lessons for policy and practice.
Case Studies should be no more than 2000 words and ought to:
- present a balanced view;
- be evidence-based (there is no need to provide a comprehensive review of the literature);
- document actual outcomes (both successful and unsuccessful); and
- highlight lessons for policy and/or practice.
Although the best structure will be partly determined by the material, a suggested framework is as follows:
- Methodology/Sequence of events
- Discussion/Lessons learned
How to Write a Perspective
Perspective articles present a novel view on a topical issue of broad interest, explore significant questions, examine the validity of current views in the field, and recommend directions for future research. The author, usually a recognised authority in the field, is welcome to take a controversial standpoint, but overall, the article should provide a clear and balanced discussion to inform non-specialist readers. The author can make specific and practical proposals, either setting an agenda or proposing better options. Perspectives will be commissioned by members of the Editorial Committee but prospective authors are welcome to submit proposals to the Editor-in-Chief, who will assess their suitability for publication. Perspectives are subject to peer review.