The Review Process
Manuscripts submitted for publication in ASHA's scholarly journals are peer reviewed, usually by two or more editorial reviewers with relevant expertise, an associate editor, and the editor. On occasion, authors may request that editors either include or exclude a specific reviewer or associate editor from the review of that author's manuscript. In such an event, the editor has discretion whether to honor or not to honor the request.
Blind Review
The "Information for Authors" section of all the journals specifies that a system of blind review is available to authors who wish to remain anonymous to the editorial consultants during the review process. To do so using the online system, the author must contact the appropriate editorial administrator for the journal. Such authors must submit the manuscript with no names or institutional references by which a reviewer could identify the author. Responsibility for removal of identifying information rests with the author. However, the Publications Board encourages authors to submit their work for open review.
Confidentiality
Two types of confidentiality are relevant in the publications program. The first concerns confidentiality with regard to editorial processing of manuscripts. Manuscripts submitted to ASHA journals are privileged information. They are confidential and must not be discussed with anyone other than the journal editor and the assigned associate editor. Occasionally, a reviewer must consult with colleagues on some aspect of a paper, such as the statistical analysis. Such consultations should occur only with the editor's or associate editor's permission and without providing the author's identity or details of the manuscript's content. Manuscripts are not to be shared as a training device. After the final publication decision has been made, reviewers should destroy their copies of the manuscript.
When email is used for correspondence about a submission, the manuscript should be referred to by its assigned number. Similarly, the name of any reviewer should be kept confidential in any e-mail transmission by using assigned reviewer number.
The second type of confidentiality concerns protection of the anonymity of clients/patients and research participants. This issue has been discussed from time to time by the Publications Board, but at present there is no formal statement of policy or guidelines on acceptable and unacceptable practices. However, individual institutional review boards, in efforts to follow standards established by federal agencies, typically require that the identity of research subjects remain confidential.
Inflammatory Language in Reviews
Associate editors should attempt to catch inflammatory language in any reviewer's comments before submitting their recommendation to the editor. The review should be backed out to the reviewer's Reviewer Center and the reviewer should be asked to make the changes to the comments and resubmit them. The editor may pull the review if the reviewer refused to change the language.
Conflicts of Interest
General principles concerning avoidance of conflicts of interest apply to the policies and procedures adopted by the Publications Board and its journals. The principle of conflict of interest concerns a judgment that an individual's evaluations and decisions may be prejudiced or biased by self-interest. In many situations, it is important to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. As with confidentiality, no specific policies or guidelines have yet been developed by the Publications Board. Following are some general observations that provide direction for avoidance of conflicts of interest.
Publications Board Members
Within the Publications Board itself, one safeguard against conflict of interest is the nonvoting status of the ex officio members of the Board. In addition, Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised, which specifies parliamentary procedures under which the Board operates, spells out the kinds of situations in which a member of a deliberative body should refrain from voting because of conflict of interest. Basically, this occurs when a particular individual stands to profit or suffer a loss as a result of the outcome of a vote. Conflict of interest does not apply if all voting members would profit or lose equally.
Editors, Associate Editors, Reviewers
The following are only suggestions and are not yet official policies and procedures of the Publications Board. With regard to conflicts of interest in the editorial and review processes, one possible model is that adopted by the National Institutes of Health for their peer review system. For example, between author and reviewer family relationship, student/mentor relationship, and co-author or co-worker status in the present or recent past are all bases for potential conflict of interest. NIH also excludes those with ongoing contractual obligations, such as those of collaborator or consultant, from serving as reviewers. Another possible source of conflict, inherently more subjective and difficult to evaluate, is compatibility or incompatibility of authors' and reviewers' theoretical or methodological approaches. If a reviewer may be expected to have a personal or professional stake in the editorial outcome, independent of the scientific merit of the manuscript, the potential for conflict of interest exists. An editor or associate editor not participate in the review process of any paper of which he or she is author or co-author.
|