The CHM now has a system of open peer review. This means that reviewers have to sign their reports, saying briefly who they are and where they work. We also ask reviewers to declare to the editors any competing interests that might relate to articles we have asked them to review, and we take these into account when considering reviewers' comments. When such competing interests are too great reviewers usually decline the assignment. Open peer review does not mean that authors should feel able to contact reviewers directly to discuss their reports; All queries should still be directed through the editorial office.
We aim to reach a first decision on all manuscripts within two or three weeks of submission. Rejection is often much quicker than this, and we reject about two thirds of all submissions without external peer review.
For original research articles one editor will usually take each article from start to finish. If your article is potentially suitable for the CHM, the editor will ask the editor-in-chief to approve it and, if succeeds, he or she will send your article to two external peer reviewers. The editor-in-chief assigns the article to the corresponding associate editors-in-chief according to their research area. Then associate editors-in-chief invite and/ or assign reviewers. Reviewers score the manuscript. Associate Editor Makes Preliminary Decision. Board of Editors Approves Decision or Suggests Change.
Articles can be rejected at this stage for a variety of reasons such as similarity with a recently published article, the topic is outside of the scope of the journal, little new information is provided, important flaws in the scientific validity, or an unprofessional presentation. If the editor believes the article may be of interest to our readers, it is then sent out for external peer review. The editor identifies potential reviewers seeking a balance of perspectives, such as clinical utility and rigor of the scientific methodology. We try to get three informative reviews for each manuscript. Several approaches may be used to find reviewers. Of course, the editorial board is frequently consulted.
We also take the number of manuscripts in the queue to be published into account as well as our impression that the paper can be suitably revised. Editors consult with one another as needed. Frequent reasons for rejection after peer review are based on an assessment that the paper doesn’t provide enough new information, or if the message is too complex or too narrow. Common validity concerns include low response rates, invalidated research instruments, and an unsuitable comparison group. With few exceptions, the reviewers receive a copy of the decision letter sent to authors with all reviews appended.
The next step is for your research article. Your paper's editor, and the CHM research team will read and discuss your article's importance, originality, and scientific quality and the editor will make the final decision. If the article is final available to publication, it will be edited by the corresponding editor.
Articles for the Analysis section of the CHM go through a similar process and those that survive external review go to an editorial committee meeting where the editors make the final decision. We aim to reach a final decision on publication within ten weeks of submission for all articles. If we make an offer of publication subject to revision we usually ask authors to return their articles to us within the subsequent month.
Accepted articles are published on http://www.tiprpress.com/chmen/ch/index.aspx as they become ready, and http://www.tiprpress.com/chmen/ch/index.aspx is updated daily. Once published, articles are then selected for a subsequent print issue.
The CHM provides open access to peer reviewed research as part of its commitment to readers and authors. We make all CHM research articles freely available online.