Qualitative Health Research

Review, Decision and Revision Process

The Main Players

  • The corresponding author
  • The technical editor
  • The editor
  • Possibly a section editor
  • Expert reviewers
  • Co-authors

Steps in the Process

  1. The corresponding author submits a manuscript
  2. The technical editor checks the manuscript documents for general acceptability
  3. The editor conducts an initial, abbreviated review of the manuscript; at this point the editor can make a decision to: 
  • Send the manuscript out for peer review;
  • Assign the manuscript to a section editor to manage the peer review process; or
  • Reject the manuscript because it is fundamentally unsuited to QHR and/or its readership
  1. The technical editor extends invitations for qualified experts to provide a formal review of the manuscript; this includes:
  • Entering keywords from the manuscript into the QHR database of expert reviewers
  • Selecting reviewers whose keywords (areas of expertise) most closely match the keywords (topic areas) of the manuscript
  • Extending invitations to prospective reviewers by email
  1. The invited reviewers can choose to accept the assignment, or may decline it based on unavailability (lack of time/opportunity to conduct the review) or because their expertise is not a good match for the main topic(s) of the manuscript.
  1. If the reviewer accepts the assignment, the online review system, Manuscript Central, automatically sends the reviewer, via email, instructions on how to access the manuscript and submit the review. If the reviewer declines the assignment, the technical editor repeats step 4, above, until a sufficient number of reviewers have agreed to evaluate the manuscript. Depending on the time of year (because of vacations, holidays, breaks in academic schedules, etc.), the number of qualified potential reviewers with expertise in the appropriate topic area, and the speed with which the invited reviewers respond to the invitation, this step in the process can take a significant amount of time.
  1. The reviewers read through the manuscript very carefully (usually several times), and electronically submit their considered responses to the questions listed below. Though reviewers are asked to submit their evaluations within 30 days of accepting the assignment, circumstances may arise which preclude their meeting the deadline. No decisions can be made until the reviews are received. 

Review Criteria:

  • Importance of submission: What are the manuscript’s strengths?  Is it significant?  Does it contain new and unique information?
  • Theoretical evaluation: Is the manuscript logical?  Is the theory parsimonious?  Complete?  Useful?
  • Methodological assessment: Inductive approach?  Appropriate method and design?  Is the sample appropriate and adequate?  Are data saturated? Theoretical analysis?  Linked with theory and/or praxis?
  • Adherence to ethical standards?
  • Manuscript style and format: Please evaluate writing style, organization, clarity, grammar, appropriate citations, etc. Is the manuscript unnecessarily long?
  • Other Comments: Please give specific advice to the author(s) on how to improve the manuscript.
  1. When all reviews of a particular manuscript have been received, the technical editor provides them to the editor, along with the manuscript, for consideration and a decision.

  1. Based upon the reviews received, and the editor’s own evaluation of the manuscript, the editor makes a decision on the manuscript. Possible decisions include:
  • Acceptance of the manuscript for publication
  • Provisional acceptance of the manuscript, pending specific revisions based on reviewer comments, and formatting and content requirements of the journal
  • An invitation to revise the manuscript in response to reviewer comments and suggestions, and formatting and content requirements of the journal, and to resubmit it for further consideration.
  • Rejection of the manuscript, possibly with recommendations for improving it in readiness for submission elsewhere

  1. The technical editor sends the editor’s decision, via email, to the corresponding author.

  2. The corresponding author reviews the decision letter with any co-authors. If invited to submit a revision, either for publication or for further consideration, the author(s) can choose to accept or decline that invitation. If they accept, they revise the manuscript as instructed, and submit it.

  1. The editor reviews the revised manuscript, and makes one of the following decisions:
  • Accept the manuscript for publication
  • Send the revision out for peer review (beginning the process again, but usually with the original reviewers providing the new evaluation)
  • Invite the author(s) to make further revisions, either with provisional acceptance for publication, or for further consideration
  • Reject the manuscript

A note about the decision letter: If you receive an emailed letter indicating that your manuscript is “not suitable for publication in QHR”—even if suggestions are provided for improving your manuscript—your article has been rejected; please do not resubmit it.

  1. The technical editor sends the decision to the corresponding author. If the manuscript is accepted, the technical editor places it in the production queue.

Reasons for “Revise” and “Reject” Decisions

Whether or not an author receives a “revise” or “reject” decision depends on:

  1. The nature of the reviews and the magnitude of the changes requested

  2. Whether or not it is possible to correct the manuscript sufficiently to make it suitable for publication

How much QHR has recently published on a particular topic (or how much is currently queued for publication)