Peer-review process for hpsmedia's scientific journals
Here you will find information about the journals' peer-review process. Articles undergo a standardised double-blind review. The review criteria are available here. The process for hpsmedia's scientific journals follows the international standards of the BMJ and JAMA. Below is the assessment catalogue we use in the translated version of the BMJ questionnaire:
Assessment criteria
An article review comprises quantitative and qualitative parts. The quantitative part assesses eight items (see below), from which a score is calculated. A maximum of forty points is available (8 × 5 points). The current score for accepted articles is 32.5 points or higher.
The qualitative part provides written feedback and reasons for accepting or rejecting the article.
Criterion: Originality
|
Reject (1) |
Major revision (2) |
Minor revision (3) |
Accept (4, 5) |
| None | Largely | Yes | Completely |
Criterion: Introduction
|
Reject (1) |
Major revision (2) |
Minor revision (3) |
Accept (4, 5) |
Missing or incorrect; Introduction does not match the text; Stated methods, results or conclusions are missing or incorrect No connection to the current debate No interesting topic or new information |
Poor writing style: incorrect sentences requiring extensive language revision; Parts of the abstract are missing or unclear: research question, methods, results or conclusion Topic is of interest to a very limited readership, with no transferability |
Minor errors in data, information, sources or reports; All text sections are present, but editorial revision is needed; Topic is interesting and of general interest |
All text sections are present Information is plausible Good writing style: precise and clear Interesting topic |
Criterion: Materials and methods
|
Reject (1) |
Major revision (2) |
Minor revision (3) |
Accept (4, 5) |
Serious errors in the data or their processing: numbers/sources, instruments and methods, or ethics Description of the procedure and/or methods is missing Materials or sources are incomplete or incorrect No new findings; Poor writing style; difficult to understand; Incorrect or missing figures Many spelling and/or grammatical errors |
Errors in data or their processing: numbers/sources, instruments and methods, or ethics Poor writing style: revision by the author is possible and necessary; isolated spelling or grammatical errors Description of the procedure is incorrect; the procedure is not readily traceable Tables or figures need revision |
Minor errors that can be corrected editorially Good writing style with minor spelling or grammatical errors; Description of materials and methods needs editorial revision Too many or too few figures: shorten or expand as appropriate |
Presented coherently Key results are summarised The relevance of the results is justified Credible; the research question is answered Good writing style |
Criterion: Discussion
|
Reject (1) |
Major revision (2) |
Minor revision (3) |
Accept (4, 5) |
Invalid statements and conclusions that cannot be inferred from the data or sources No conclusions or study limitations No reference to relevant contributions on the topic No discussion of whether and how the article contributes to the body of knowledge |
Results, objectives and conclusions are not presented clearly enough; revision by the author is needed; |
Results, objectives and conclusions are clearly presented; at most, editorial revision is needed Results, objectives and conclusions are clearly presented but could be expanded Manuscript extends the body of knowledge |
Results, objectives and conclusions are clearly presented Valuable contribution that extends knowledge |
Criterion: Results
|
Reject (1) |
Major revision (2) |
Minor revision (3) |
Accept (4, 5) |
Serious errors in the data or their processing: numbers/sources, instruments and methods, or ethics Description of the procedure and/or methods is missing Materials or sources are incomplete or incorrect No new findings; Poor writing style; difficult to understand; Incorrect or missing figures Many spelling and/or grammatical errors |
Errors in data or their processing: numbers/sources, instruments and methods, or ethics Poor writing style: revision by the author is possible and necessary; isolated spelling or grammatical errors Description of the procedure is incorrect; the procedure is not readily traceable Tables or figures need revision |
Errors in data or their processing: numbers/sources, instruments and methods, or ethics Poor writing style: revision by the author is possible and necessary; isolated spelling or grammatical errors Description of the procedure is incorrect; the procedure is not readily traceable Tables or figures need revision |
Minor errors that can be corrected editorially Good writing style with minor spelling or grammatical errors; Description of materials and methods needs editorial revision Too many or too few figures: shorten or expand as appropriate |
Criterion: Sources
|
Reject (1) |
Major revision (2) |
Minor revision (3) |
Accept (4, 5) |
Not appropriate for the manuscript Too many or too few sources Outdated Incomplete No consistent referencing system |
Too many or too few sources, but this can be revised Some sources are outdated, incorrect or incorrectly cited, or key sources are missing; this can be revised Not always appropriate for the manuscript Incorrect referencing system; not in accordance with APA |
At most, minor revision or updating of the references is needed An important contribution is missing Minor additions or revisions are needed APA style with minor errors that can be corrected editorially |
Current and relevant Appropriate for the publication Consistent with the materials, methods, research question and results In accordance with APA |
Criterion: Figures, tables, images, datasets and data
|
Reject (1) |
Major revision (2) |
Minor revision (3) |
Accept (4, 5) |
Too many / too few No connection to the text Duplications Poor quality Purpose is unclear Elements such as labels or legends are missing Incorrect figures Major discrepancies between data, sources or materials and the text Questionable, poorly prepared, inadequate or outdated data that contradict existing findings Project data are not relevant No connection to practice |
Too many or too few, but the author can correct this The connection to the manuscript needs to be clearer Quality needs improvement; figure must be revised Elements such as labels or legends are missing; the author can correct this Discrepancies between text, figures and data, e.g. sample size; Data-processing errors, e.g. calculation errors, which the author can correct Errors in qualitative material which the author can correct Should be expanded to include further aspects |
Figures are good and support understanding of the text or presentation of data Minor editorial revision is needed Minor errors in data, sources or material that can be corrected editorially |
Very good figures Figures support the research question, data and results Figures add new information to the text Clear, traceable and appropriate for the manuscript |
Criterion: Writing style
|
Reject (1) |
Major revision (2) |
Minor revision (3) |
Accept (4, 5) |
Poor, incomprehensible, with many spelling and grammatical errors Does not comply with the author guidelines Difficult to follow |
Needs extensive revision but is usable in substance Several writing-style errors which the author can correct Does not comply with the author guidelines |
Figures are good and support understanding of the text or presentation of data Minor editorial revision is needed Minor errors in data, sources or material that can be corrected editorially |
Very good figures Figures support the research question, data and results Figures add new information to the text Clear, traceable and appropriate for the manuscript |