Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

Health, Interprofessional Practice and Education uses a rigorous, double blind peer evaluation process for all submissions which are subject to peer review. Upon submission, each article is reviewed by the appropriate section editor for relevance and quality (including methodological quality, potential ethical issues and quality of writing). After this initial review, the article is assigned to at least two peer reviewers. Preference is given for the use of two double blind reviewers (neither the author nor the reviewer will know the others' identity). However, if two appropriate external reviewers cannot be identified, editorial board members may serve as reviewers (and will notify authors regarding the non-blind nature of the review process).

Reviewers are assigned on the basis of expertise and familiarity with the content of the submission in question. Whenever possible, the professions represented in a submission will be matched with reviewers from the same discipline. However, though some submissions will include several different professions, it is not practical to require review of the submission by a professional from each discipline represented. In these cases, reviewers will be selected on the basis of their expertise of the subject/methodology at hand, regardless of their professional affiliation. If it is deemed absolutely necessary due to questions related a specific profession, the editor may seek input from additional reviewers. Reviewers independently supply the section editor with a recommendation to accept, require revisions of, or reject the submission. Final publication decisions will be determined through consultation between the section editor and editor-in-chief.

Both practicing health professionals and health professions educators are encouraged to participate in the peer review process for the journal by becoming reviewers. If you are interested in reviewing articles, please contact the editors.

Editorial Review

For submissions not requiring peer review, the appropriate section editor will review the submission for relevance and quality and make a recommendation to the editor-in chief regarding a publication decision.

If necessary due to the complexity or unfamiliarity of content, section editors may solicit external reviews for these submissions. If an external reviewer is used, the procedure for peer review detailed above will be followed.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are asked to provide comment on the below topics and guidelines. Reviewers, especially new reviewers, are encouraged to watch this video that provides an overview of the HIPE peer review process.

  • Content: Does the article fit within the scope of the journal? Is the submission original, relevant and rigorous? Is the author’s depth of understanding of the issues researched adequate? Are the sources and references adequate? Has the existing knowledge base been explored and built upon? Are the chosen methodologies appropriate and have they and the evidential base been appropriately used? Does the conclusion reflect the argument in the main body text and bring something new to the debate?
  • Structure and argument: Does the abstract summarise the arguments in a succinct and accurate way? Is the manuscript logically structured and do the arguments flow coherently? Is there enough reference to methodology in the introduction and are the arguments fully evidenced and substantiated? Does the introduction signpost the arguments in the logical way and does the conclusion adequately summarise them?
  • Figures/tables: Does the author’s use of tables, charts, figures or maps illustrate the arguments and support the evidential base? Is the quality of the formatting and presentation adequate?
  • Formatting: Does the submitted file adhere to the general author guidelines listed for the journal? Are the citations and references formatted to house-style?
  • Language: Is the text well written and jargon free? Please comment on the quality of English and need for grammatical improvement.

Preprint Policy

The journal allows authors to deposit draft versions of their paper into a suitable preprint server, on condition that the author agrees to the below:

  • The author retains copyright to the preprint and developed works from it, and is permitted to submit to the journal.
  • The author declares that a preprint is available within the cover letter presented during submission. This must include a link to the location of the preprint.
  • The author acknowledges that having a preprint publicly available means that the journal cannot guarantee the anonymity of the author during the review process, even if they anonymise the submitted files (see review policy).
  • Should the submission be published, the authors are expected to update the information associated with the preprint version to show that a final version has been published in the journal, including the DOI linking directly to the publication.

ORCID

The journal strongly recommends that all authors submitting a paper register an account with Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID). Registration provides a unique and persistent digital identifier for the account that enables accurate attribution and improves the discoverability of published papers, ensuring that the correct author receives the correct credit for their work. As the ORCID remains the same throughout the lifetime of the account, changes of name, affiliation, or research area do not effect the discoverability of an author's past work and aid correspondence with colleagues.

The journal encourages all corresponding authors to include an ORCID within their submitting author data whilst co-authors are recommended to include one. ORCID numbers should be added to the author data upon submission and will be published alongside the submitted paper, should it be accepted.

Competing Interests and Funding Sources

To ensure transparency, all authors, reviewers and editors are required to declare any interests that could compromise, conflict or influence the validity of the publication. Competing interests guidelines can be viewed here. In addition, authors are required to specify funding sources.

Corrections and Retractions

In accordance with guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (where applicable), the Press handles different kinds of error. All articles have their proofs checked prior to publication by the author/editor, which should ensure that content errors are not present. Please contact your editorial manager if an article needs correcting.

Post-publication changes are not permitted to the publication, unless in exceptional circumstances. If an error is discovered in a published article then the publisher will assess whether a Correction paper or Retraction is required. Visit out Correction Policy page for more information.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

Authors are expected to adhere to the following guidelines adapted from the ICMJE:

All investigators should ensure that the planning, conduct, and reporting of human research are in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013. All authors should seek approval to conduct research from an independent local, regional or national review body (e.g., ethics committee, institutional review board). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the local, regional or national review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. Approval by a responsible review body does not preclude editors from forming their own judgment whether the conduct of the research was appropriate. Authors must provide written attestation as part of submissions that appropriate review body approval has been sought and obtained and, for any research involving human subjects, written attestation that such approval included appropriate informed consent procedures.

Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potential identifiable material might be available via the Internet as well as in print after publication. Patient consent should be written and available for HIPE editorial review, as indicated in the Author Guidelines (see section on Case Reports)

Nonessential identifying details should be omitted from manuscripts. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are deidentified, authors should provide assurance, and editors will confirm, that such changes do not distort scientific meaning.

When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed.

Misconduct and Complaints

Allegations of misconduct will be taken with utmost seriousness, regardless of whether those involved are internal or external to the journal, or whether the submission in question is pre- or post-publication. If an allegation of misconduct is made to the journal, it must be immediately passed on to the publisher, who will follow guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) on how to address the nature of the problem. Should the matter involve allegations against a member of the journal or publishing team, an independent and objective individual(s) may be sought to lead the investigation.

Should an author wish to lodge a complaint against an editorial decision or the editorial process in general they should first approach the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, explaining their complaint and ask for a reasoned response. Should this not be forthcoming or inadequate, they should raise the matter with the publisher, who will investigate the nature of the complaint and act as arbiter on whether the complaint should be upheld and investigated further. This will follow guidelines set out by COPE.

Section Policies

Original Research

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Research Brief

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Case Report

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Review Articles

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

From the Field: Learner Experience

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Commentary

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Quick links