The Peer Review Process

Curious about our peer review process?

Hear from one of our managing editors, Dr. Kate Krival

The term peer review refers to a process involving single-blind or double-blind critical inspection and appraisal of many types of work, including research articles, systematic review, literature review, meta-analyses, tutorials, position papers, etc. The peer review process is NOT limited to research articles alone. Peer review is an integral aspect of scholarly development outside of refereed journals.
k

WHAT IS A RESOURCE?

A resource is meant to be used by clinicians. Resources range from topic overviews to deeper exploration, and take several useful forms, from tutorials to prepared in-services ready to use in clinical practice. Resources are not original research and are not designed for continuing education credit.

EDITORIAL REVIEW

An Editorial Review includes careful examination and commentary on the mechanics (spelling, grammar, APA formatting, etc.) of each submission. Editors may also discuss whether the material meets the needs and interests of our membership.

w

PEER REVIEW

A Peer Reviewer is familiar with research and clinical literature in the resource topic area. Our Peer Reviewers are typically PhD, EdD, or other research educated faculty, as well as some with clinical doctorates, master’s degrees, and backgrounds in development of clinical materials.

PROCESS

Authors who wish to submit a resource must reach out to the Content Manager (CM) to discuss an area of interest. The CM may also reach out to potential authors if specific requests for a resource are made. The CM provides the prospective author with “Contribution Guidelines,” that  contain a general set of criteria including originality, attribution, organization of key points/objectives, etc.

PROCESS CONTINUED

Once the draft is received, Reviewer 1 (R1) completes first review following a set of guidelines that includes emphasis on best practice, accurate integration of relevant literature, and relevancy of cited materials. After this first review, R1 discusses resource with ME recommending minor or major revisions from author with a subsequent re-review (R2) after changes are made within 2-4 weeks.

PUBLICATION

Following R2, most resources only require editorial clean-up and are ready for publication. A reference recommendation, author name/collective name if no author listed, and date are applied, and the resource will be distributed to the collective, usually with a short video explanation from the author, from the CR, or from Theresa Richard.

You do NOT have to be a mentor to Create a resource! Please reach out if you are interested in contributing!