Peer Review Process
With the exception of editorials, news items, analysis articles and features written by Clinical Correlations’ editors, all other posts are reviewed by internal or external peer reviewers.
The process begins with submission of a post.Â All posts are submitted directly to Clinical Correlations for review (send to firstname.lastname@example.org).Â Each submitted post is screened by a member of the editorial staff.Â Within one week of submission, one of the following decisions is made:
- Rejection: Reasons for rejection at this stage include but are not limited to: insufficient originality, serious flaws in scientific reasoning, or the absence of a message that is important to a general medical audience. Prior to rejection, a second editor must agree.
- Request for revision and resubmission: This occurs when the editorial board identifies questions or modifications that should be made prior to official peer review. These comments are sent directly to the author.
- Peer review: Posts will then enter the formal peer review process.
Peer reviewers are faculty from NYU and are organized by specialty.Â They are not paid for their work and will disclose any competing interests that might be relevant to the article we have asked them to review.Â They will be unaware of the author’s name and level of training at the time the post is reviewed.
- review for accuracy of content
- suggest revisions or clarifications
- send comments to the editors, who will subsequently forward to the author(s)
- will return post within 2 weeks of receipt
- are encouraged to add a commentary to the post-a short paragraph describing their thoughts on the subject and any additional comments they would like to make. This commentary is not required of a peer review
Once a post is in the peer review process, communication with the author occurs via the editorial board.Â The author of the post is aware of the identity of the reviewer, but agrees to communicate through the editors.
- will receive suggested content revisions from the editorial board.
- will make appropriate revisions and resubmit post within 2 weeks
- will hear back from the editorial board when the post is final andwhen the post is published on Clinical Correlations.
Once reviewed and revised, the post completes a final review by a member of the senior editorial board for final acceptance.Â Accepted posts will then be edited by a copy editor for grammatical accuracy.Â Authors are responsible for all statements made in their work, including changes made during editing and production that are authorized by the corresponding author.
- Time Line: It generally takes approximately 4 weeks for a post to be submitted until the process of peer review is complete. A post can be “fast tracked” through the system at the discretion of the editorial board.
- Format naming peer reviewer: At the beginning of every article “faculty peer reviewed” will be placed beneath the author’s name; this will link to the name and title of the reviewer.
- Appeals Process: Owing to the subjective nature of any peer review process, we welcome a written appeal to the editorial board if an article is rejected.
- Editing: Accepted manuscripts are edited in accordance with the AMA Manual of Style, 10th edition,3: http://jama.ama-assn.org/misc/ifora.dtl#Ref3
Peer Reviewed Posts
- Bedside Rounds
- Class Act
- Clinical Questions
- Diseases 2.0
- Future Medicine
- Healthcare Policy
- Meeting Perspectives
- Mystery Quiz
- Senior Moments-Highlights from the Third Year Resident Lectures
Internal Editorial Review
- Breaking News-reviewed by editorial staff
- Grand Rounds-every summary is reviewed and edited by the speaker prior to publication
- Hotspots-reviewed by editorial staff
- Shortcuts-this weekly post will have a single review by the editorial staff
- Tales of Survival
- News Items
- Article analysis
- Features written by editors of Clinical Correlations