Peer Reviewer Resources


Peer Review Policies

The Journal of Interprofessional Practice and Collaboration (JIPC) views the submission and peer review process as part of the continuing learning experience for authors. The Editorial Board expects the review process to be an instructive and positive experience, even in the case of rejection.

Peer Review Process

All submissions to the JIPC are first reviewed for completeness by the Associate Editor and Content Editor who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Manuscripts that are poor quality, do not follow guidelines, or submissions that do not fit within the scope of the journal will be rejected without being reviewed any further.

Potential articles that fit within the scope are reviewed using a double-blind method that involves at least two experts (peer reviewers), sometimes three, to assess the article's quality, policy relevance, and suitability for the Journals’ general audience. The identities of the authors and peer reviewers are not revealed. Any manuscript received for review is treated as a confidential document. Editors strive to ensure the peer review is fair, unbiased, and timely.

The Associate Editor sends invitations to the journal’s trained peer reviewers identified as appropriate topic-relevant reviewers. Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. Reviewers are expected to respond to the invitation promptly. If it is not possible to review the manuscript, reviewers are expected to decline to review in a timely manner.

Once all reviews have been received, authors are given editorial decisions along with anonymous reviewer feedback. Most manuscripts require revisions prior to acceptance. If invited to revise and resubmit a manuscript, authors are responsible for completing the requested revisions in a timely manner, as stipulated by the decision letter.

Authors can expect to hear from the editor within two months of the date of submission as to whether the article has been accepted for publication.

Peer Reviewer Guidance

The JIPC believes that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research. The primary purpose of peer review is providing the Editor with the information needed to reach a fair, evidence-based decision that adheres to the journal’s editorial criteria.

The Editorial Board at JIPC supports a systematic approach to the peer review process by providing peer review tips, review guidelines, mandated peer review training and other valuable resources (See Helpful Links below). The JIPC also requires peer reviewers to adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers.

JIPC is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and readership. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly with their decision to accept or decline the review. If reviewers anticipate a delay with their review, they should inform the editors, so the authors can be notified and when necessary, find alternative reviewers.

Peer Review Quality Assessment

Peer review allows manuscripts submitted to a journal to be evaluated and commented by independent experts within the same field of research. The goals of a peer review are to provide a fair evaluation of the merit of the work and to provide a critique that improves the manuscript.

Reviews are conducted objectively and include supporting comments so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Reviewers should follow the Peer Review Checklist by Taylor and Francis to guide the review process in determining merit of the manuscript. While the criteria may vary somewhat according to the type of article, in general reviewers should check that the work is original, the study design and methodology are appropriate and described so that others could replicate what has been done, that the results are presented clearly and appropriately, that the conclusions are reliable and significant, and the work is a high enough standard to be published in the journal.

In sum, reviewers should evaluate a manuscript for:

  1. Adequacy for the rationale for the study or paper
  2. Accuracy and scope of the literature review
  3. Appropriateness of research design, data analysis, and interpretation of results for research articles
  4. Organization
  5. Clarity
  6. Overall clinical or theoretical significance of the work

Constructive Criticism

Constructive criticism and suggestions for changing the paper to improve the manuscript are welcomed. A review is more than a suggestion to revise, reject, or accept — comments should be meaningful. Please keep the following considerations in mind as reviews are completed:

  • Identification of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript is useful.
  • Use clear, easy to understand language and provide examples to clarify points.
  • Organizing comments by line numbers to help authors locate the target for your comments easily.
  • Divide comments into major and minor issues to help authors prioritize corrections.
  • Make any recommendation for acceptance or rejection in the Comments to the Editor area, not in your comments for the author.
  • Maintain a tone of professional respect in your review. Criticisms should be put forth in positive ways, accompanied by specific suggestions for improvement whenever possible.
  • Be objective, constructive, and specific. Provide feedback that improves the scientific merit of the manuscript and the communication of that science.
  • Personal or derogatory language is to be avoided.

Recommendation Types

After completing the review, reviewers select a recommendation for the article from the possibilities listed below:

  • Accept - Accept paper in its present form. Some minor copyediting may still be required, but it will be addressed at the copyediting stage, so the authors need not submit a revision.
  • Minor Revision - The manuscript is generally good but requires minor content and/or editorial changes before it is suitable for publication.
  • Major Revisions - The paper contains one or more serious problems in substance or form, whose resolution might result in a generally acceptable manuscript. Resubmitted manuscripts typically are reviewed again by the Editor and reviewers.
  • Reject - The content, style, and/or preparation of the manuscript are flawed to the extent that it is unlikely that revisions can render the manuscript suitable for publication.

The final decision is at the discretion of the Editor, who may or may not rely fully on the reviewers’ recommendations.

What to Expect in a Peer Review

Original Submission Review

Authors will upload a properly formatted manuscript using the JIPC system. The Associate Editor will assign the manuscript to reviewers with the right subject matter expertise. The JIPC peer reviewers will submit comments using an open text box or through a document upload, along with a decision recommendation to the Associate Editor and Editor. Document uploads can be the article with embedded comments or a word document with the reviewer's comments. The editors review the recommendations and render a decision.

Time Frame:

10 Days – Assigns manuscript

3 weeks – Review Comments submitted

5 Days – Editor renders first decision

Author Revision and Submission

If the manuscript requires a revision, then authors will be given up to 2 weeks to revise and resubmit.

Time Frame to Revise:

2 weeks – Revision

What to Expect if Your Manuscript is Accepted?

  1. The manuscript will be assigned to an issue.
  2. The authors will have the opportunity to review proof pages.
  3. All accepted manuscripts become the permanent property of JIPC.

What to Do if Your Manuscript gets Rejected?

  1. Make a list of all reviewer comments.
  2. Spend time assessing the scope of the revisions requested.
  3. Categorize the comments such as clarifying, filling gaps, reinterpretation of data, etc.
  4. Note requests you simply cannot meet.
  5. Decide on an action plan to undertake for each comment.

Common Reasons for Rejection

  1. The manuscript does not fall within the Aims and Scope of the Journal.
  2. The article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized, or it is currently under review at another journal.
  3. Submitting the same paper to multiple journals at the same time is not allowed.
  4. The manuscript is insufficiently prepared; for example, lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references, and tables and figures.
  5. The English is not of sufficient quality to allow a useful peer review to take place.
  6. The figures are not complete or are not clear enough to read.
  7. The article does not conform to the most important aspects of the specific journal’s Author Guidelines.
  8. There are flaws in the procedures and/or analysis of the data.
  9. The research topic was of little significance.

How to Become a JIPC Peer Reviewer

JIPC will issue a Call for Peer Reviewers as needed with an application form link. Applications are currently open! Click the links to view the Call for Reviewers Flyer with the Peer Reviewer Application Form.