Editorial process and policies
Authorship
The list of authors should include all those who can
legitimately claim authorship. This will be all those who have made
a substantial contribution to the concept and design, conduct,
analysis, or writing up of a study. Authors may, if they wish,
supply details of their individual contributions to the work, but
we do not insist on it, and the data will not be published.
Contributions would be expected to fall into one of the following
categories:
- Conceiving and designing the study;
- Obtaining funding and/or ethical approval;
- Collecting the data;
- Analysing the data;
- Interpreting the data;
- Writing the report in part or wholly;
- Revising the report.
Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work
to take public responsibility for the content relevant to their own
contribution. We do not require all authors to sign the initial
letter accompanying submission; however, all authors must sign the
declaration form sent with the Editor’s response at the conclusion
of peer review. In addition, at least one author should be
designated as the guarantor for the integrity of the data on which
the paper is based. This will normally be the author for
correspondence.
Submission of
papers
Articles should be
submitted online at
http://bjgp.allentrack.net/
The first time you use the
system, you will register for an account. You will need your
account login and password when you return to the site to check on
the status of your paper. When you register, it is absolutely
essential that you type in your email address correctly. If you do
not, we will have no other way of contacting you. If your email
address changes, please remember to update your profile.
Author submission
instructions can be found on the
AllenTrack website.
It is not essential that the first
submission conform to these instructions in every particular.
However, where there are obvious major breaches (for instance, if
your paper is much longer than recommended) it may be rejected
without being sent out for peer review. Normally, we shall only
insist on strict adherence to the Instructions for Authors in
revised files, and the Editor's letter will give further
instructions to help you achieve this.
Processing submitted papers
All papers are
screened by the Editor. Any that are unlikely to be accepted,
whatever the result of peer review, are rejected at this stage. The
grounds for rejection at this stage are:
- A major flaw in the design or;
- A piece of work that falls outside the
BJGP’s remit and that is best published
elsewhere.
Since rejection
should be on such clear grounds, the Editorial Board has endorsed a
policy that it will not be possible to appeal against a decision
taken at this stage. Each year some members of the Board will
review a sample of screening decisions to ensure that this policy
is being followed consistently.
Peer review
Original articles, brief reports, reviews, discussion papers,
and case reports that pass the initial screening test are sent to
two or three expert reviewers. The BJGP now has an open peer
review.
Papers are assessed on a number of criteria:
- Is it clear what question is being asked and, if
so, is it important and interesting?
- Have the authors designed a study that is
capable of answering the question (i.e. is the methodology
appropriate for the question being asked; is the sample size
adequate, etc.)?
- Are the data appropriately reported and
analysed?
- Are the findings of the study being discussed in
an impartial, critical way?
- Do the findings have any relevance to primary
care beyond the local or national setting in which the study was
conducted?
Instructions issued to
reviewers
These instructions are intended to guide
reviewers:
Gradings.
You are asked to assign a grade to each paper you review on a scale
of 1–5:
1. Yes definitely
2. Yes, possibly
3. Yes, possibly, but shorter
4. Probably not
5. Definitely not
The editor uses the grades as follows:
If a paper gets two at ‘Yes definitely’, or one at ‘Yes definitely’
and one at ‘Yes, possibly’ then the paper will usually be accepted.
If it gets two at ‘Yes, possibly’ then the editor has, in effect,
the casting vote. In reality, most of these papers are in the end
rejected. If a paper gets a single grading of ‘Probably not’ or
‘Definitely not’ they are almost always rejected. Papers where
there are two opposing reviews, one from either end of the scale,
are particularly interesting, but again are almost always
rejected.
All of this means that we can give you some guidance about how
you should apply these grades.
1. Yes definitely. Self-explanatory. Use this if you are quite sure
this should be published in the BJGP. For the reasons given this
does not necessarily mean that the paper will get published.
2. Yes, possibly. Use this grade if you are undecided whether you
think it should be published or not. It means that the decision
will effectively be made by the other reviewer(s) or by the Editor,
if both of the reviewers grade it at this level.
3. Yes, possibly, but shorter. This is slightly trickier. Giving it
a grade of (3) suggests it is less worthy of publication than if
graded (2). However, it should really be what the words and not the
numbers suggest. The work should be of the same standard as one
graded (2), but where the limited scope of the work or the results
means that it could usefully be presented as something much
shorter.
4. Probably not. Again the last two are more self-explanatory. Use
this if you think that it should probably not be published in
the BJGP; using it will in most cases mean that it will be rejected
whatever the other reviewer recommends.
5. Definitely not. Use this if you are sure that it should not be
published in the BJGP; using it will in most cases mean that it
will be rejected whatever the other reviewer recommends.
The Editor’s decision draws on the advice
given by the referees, but the Editor is not bound by their
recommendations.
Appeal
The peer review process is widely acknowledged to be
imperfect. If your paper has been rejected and you feel that a
mistake has been made you may appeal. You should write to the
Editor within 6 months of receipt of the Editor’s decision, setting
out where you think the referees’ reviews or the Editor’s letter is
incorrect. You must not, at this stage, make any revisions to take
account of the referees’ comments. The appeal process will operate
if a referee or the Editor could have made a mistake with the
technical aspects of a study or if bias could have entered into the
referees’ comments. The process is unlikely to be used where a
paper has been rejected on the basis of editorial policy. If the
Editor feels that there are grounds for challenging the original
decision then the paper will be sent out to a new referee and the
Editor will be guided by this referee’s report. Referees used in
the appeal process will usually be members of the
Editorial Board.
Editorial
standards
You will receive formal acknowledgement
of your paper soon after it is received in the editorial office.
You should receive a response to the initial submission within 13
weeks of its receipt, whether or not the paper is likely to be
accepted for publication. Most papers will require some form of
revision and we ask you to submit the revised version to the BJGP
office within 3 months of receiving the Editor’s letter. We aim to
respond to revised submissions 1 month from receipt.
Performance figures will be published annually in the
BJGP.
The BJGP supports the code of conduct for
editors of biomedical journals drawn up by COPE, and available
at
At present we do not have a formally
constituted procedure for dealing with complaints against the
Editor, but intend to agree one in the course of 2007. For the time
being complaints should be addressed to the Editor who will answer
complaints directly and if the complainant is not satisfied will be
directed to COPE to be dealt with under its
procedures.
Fast tracking
Being a monthly journal, the
BJGP cannot respond with much urgency to requests to ‘fast
track’ papers. However, the Editor has discretion to move papers up
the queue if there are good reasons to do so, and get them into
print quicker than our routine procedures would allow. The authors
must supply compelling arguments to accelerate their paper in the
covering letter to the Editor and mark the paper
‘urgent’.
Publication of articles
All articles and letters are accepted subject to copy editing,
which may be considerable. Proofs of articles are sent to authors,
who are asked to check them for errors and return them promptly.
However, the exact month of publication can be decided only when
all the articles have been returned and collated with other
sections of the BJGP. On request, authors will receive 25 offprints
of their article free of charge. Order forms for extra offprints
are sent to authors with the proofs and should be returned with
them together with payment. Orders received after publication are
more expensive.
Principal authors who are not members of the College will be
sent a complimentary copy of the BJGP in which their article
appears. Enquiries about the purchase of additional copies of the
BJGP should be made to the Bookshop (0845 4564041 Ext. 211 / 258;
bookshop@rcgp.org.uk) or the
World Wide Subscription Service (Tel: 01580 200657; Fax: 01580
200616;
admin@worldwidesubscriptions.com).
Copyright
Authors of all articles assign copyright
to the Journal when they return the proofs. However, authors may
use minor parts (up to 15%) of their own work after publication
without seeking written permission, provided they acknowledge the
original source. The BJGP would, however, be grateful to receive
notice of when and where such material has been reproduced. Authors
may not reproduce substantial parts of their own material without
written consent. However, requests to reproduce material are
welcomed and consent is usually given. Individuals may photocopy
articles for educational purposes without obtaining permission up
to a maximum of 25 copies in total over any period of time.
Permission should be sought from the Editor to reproduce an article
for any other purpose.
Correspondence & enquiries
All
correspondence regarding research papers should be addressed to The
Editor, British Journal of General Practice, at the College
address; Tel (office hours): 020 7581 3232; Fax: 020 584 6716;
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk.
Contributions to the Back Pages should be addressed to the
Deputy Editor at the same address. Letters to the Editor concerning
items in the Back Pages should be copied to the Deputy
Editor.