Peer-Review
Our peer review process provides students with comprehensive feedback so that, regardless of whether their article makes final publication, students learn key skills necessary for robust academic writing. This process also allows students to gain experience in peer review, further contributing to their academic development.
The NZMSJ aims to provide an unbiased, efficient, and consistent editorial review process for all submitted articles. To align with the aims of NZMSJ and maintain a high publishing standard, the journal utilises a two-step, double-blinded peer review process for academic manuscripts.
Process
First, all submissions are screened by either the Editor in Chief or Deputy Editor to identify submission type, confirm word counts, and to ensure the article meets the journal’s aims and scope. Academic submissions are then internally reviewed by the Academic Editor or Academic Sub-Editor for referencing style and clarity. The article is then assigned to two volunteer student reviewers. Student reviewers are required to complete the Elsevier Certified Peer Review Course and provide proof of completion via email to an editorial board member prior to undertaking any article review. The student reviewers evaluate the article based on standard of presentation, appropriateness of study design and methods, quality of conclusions (as per the study type specific EQUATOR Guidelines) and ensure that appropriate ethical approval has been included. Feedback from student reviewers is provided to the authors in a comprehensive and structured format.
Following student peer review, manuscripts are then assessed by an expert reviewer, who is a senior academic with relevant research and/or clinical expertise for the submission. The expert reviewer evaluates the technical and scientific rigour of the manuscript and its coherence within the field. Final article selection for publication is made by the NZMSJ Editorial Board with recommendations from the student and expert reviewers.
Acceptance of an article into the review process does not constitute a guarantee of publication. It is the intention of NZMSJ to provide authors with the benefit of external review and revision processes that are internationally standard for published journals. This is in keeping with our educational aim to assist medical students in making the transition from writing for medical school to writing for academic journals.
Revisions
Students are presented with the opportunity to revise the manuscript at every stage of review, following feedback from the Editor-in-Chief, the student reviewers, and the expert reviewer. At all stages of review, the manuscript authors remain anonymous to student and expert reviewers, as do the student and expert reviewers to manuscript authors.
Reviewers
Reviewers are given five days to accept or reject the invitation to peer review an article, then two weeks to complete their evaluation. By accepting an invitation to review a manuscript, the reviewers agree to act in accordance with accepted publication ethics and good practice as outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The NZMSJ aims to provide an unbiased, efficient, and consistent editorial review process for all submitted articles. To align with the aims of NZMSJ and maintain a high publishing standard, the journal utilises a two-step, double-blinded peer review process for academic manuscripts.
- Expert Reviewers: Access here.
- Student Reviewers: Access here.
Process
First, all submissions are screened by either the Editor in Chief or Deputy Editor to identify submission type, confirm word counts, and to ensure the article meets the journal’s aims and scope. Academic submissions are then internally reviewed by the Academic Editor or Academic Sub-Editor for referencing style and clarity. The article is then assigned to two volunteer student reviewers. Student reviewers are required to complete the Elsevier Certified Peer Review Course and provide proof of completion via email to an editorial board member prior to undertaking any article review. The student reviewers evaluate the article based on standard of presentation, appropriateness of study design and methods, quality of conclusions (as per the study type specific EQUATOR Guidelines) and ensure that appropriate ethical approval has been included. Feedback from student reviewers is provided to the authors in a comprehensive and structured format.
Following student peer review, manuscripts are then assessed by an expert reviewer, who is a senior academic with relevant research and/or clinical expertise for the submission. The expert reviewer evaluates the technical and scientific rigour of the manuscript and its coherence within the field. Final article selection for publication is made by the NZMSJ Editorial Board with recommendations from the student and expert reviewers.
Acceptance of an article into the review process does not constitute a guarantee of publication. It is the intention of NZMSJ to provide authors with the benefit of external review and revision processes that are internationally standard for published journals. This is in keeping with our educational aim to assist medical students in making the transition from writing for medical school to writing for academic journals.
Revisions
Students are presented with the opportunity to revise the manuscript at every stage of review, following feedback from the Editor-in-Chief, the student reviewers, and the expert reviewer. At all stages of review, the manuscript authors remain anonymous to student and expert reviewers, as do the student and expert reviewers to manuscript authors.
Reviewers
Reviewers are given five days to accept or reject the invitation to peer review an article, then two weeks to complete their evaluation. By accepting an invitation to review a manuscript, the reviewers agree to act in accordance with accepted publication ethics and good practice as outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
