DOI: 10.1111/hir.12089
Editorial Peer Review at the Health Information and Libraries Journal Abstract At its best, peer review can mean receiving constructive feedback to help you make the most of your writing. At the Health Information and Libraries Journal, we strive to make the peer review a positive process for both authors and referees. We adopt a process of double-blind peer review. To receive two reviews in a timely manner, three referees are initially invited for each article submitted. The referees are asked to submit their review noting errors, areas of ambiguity or clarification required before the editor and editorial team consider the manuscript ready for publication. As with most journals, it’s unlikely that your writing will be accepted in its original form; a typical outcome will be for a recommendation for major or minor revisions. This is good! It means the editorial team has seen something of likely interest to their readership and wants to help you develop it to a publishable standard. There can be a surprising amount of development and change in a manuscript from original submission through to publication. While you may be experienced in your field, you may not have much experience of writing for publication. As a referee, you get an intriguing insight into the shape of manuscripts in their original form. Keywords: evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP); library and information science; library and information sector; peer reviewing; writing At its best, peer review can mean receiving constructive feedback to help you make the most of your writing. It is impartial, meaning the feedback is presented in an objective and unbiased way, and can help you to achieve the standard of
investigation and reporting expected by those working in your field of practice. At the Health Information and Libraries Journal, we strive to make the peer review a positive process for both authors and referees. We adopt a process of double-blind peer review, which means that the author doesn’t know who will be reviewing their manuscript and the referees don’t know the person who has submitted the writing for consideration. To speed the path of manuscripts through peer review, the Health Information and Libraries Journal invites three referees to review each review or original article submitted to the journal. Most of the times, only two of the three referees are available to review the manuscript, which is fine as generally only two reviews are needed for the editorial team to reach a decision. The referees submit their review noting areas of ambiguity or errors that need to be addressed as well as the general readability and likely interest in the topic area for readers of the Health Information and Libraries Journal; the editor and editorial team then consider whether the manuscript is ready for publication. For extra transparency, in addition to recording the decision to accept, reject or require revisions, the decision letter will also include a statement from the Editor-in-Chief summarising the key points that need addressing. As with most journals, it’s unlikely that your writing will be accepted exactly as it’s submitted. Instead, if your work isn’t rejected outright (was it in scope?), a typical outcome will be for a recommendation for major or minor revisions. This is good! It means the editorial team has seen something of likely interest to our readership and wants to help you develop it to a publishable standard. While this will mean more work, you’re now in a negotiation with the editor and editorial team between reporting your project and drawing out the lessons that can be learnt and shared with our readership.
© 2014 The authors. Health Information and Libraries Journal © 2014 Health Libraries Journal Health Information & Libraries Journal, 31, pp. 251–253
251
252
Editorial
There are benefits for being a referee of the Health Information and Libraries Journal too. While you may be experienced in your field, you may not have much experience of writing for publication. Seeing the high quality of published articles can be daunting for novice writers, so reviewing manuscripts can provide an intriguing insight into the shape of manuscripts in their original form. There can be a surprising amount of development and change in a manuscript from original submission through the publication. Becoming involved in peer review can provide insight into this evolution. For the Health Information and Libraries Journal, refereeing plays an essential part in promoting rigour and contributing to the dissemination of knowledge. We encourage constructive and positive referee comments to help authors develop their work and to raise the general standard of writing within the library and information sector. The editorial team couldn’t do its work without our referees, and a list of those who’ve contributed to this activity in 2014 appears in the acknowledgement of this issue. A big thank you to everyone for their constructive feedback in the past 12 months. If you’ve submitted a manuscript for peer review to the Health Information and Libraries Journal, we hope you found it a positive experience. . . and if you’re interested in supporting the journey of a manuscript from first submission through to publication, get in touch for details about how to join our referee database. Maria J. Grant Editor, Health Information and Libraries Journal Email: [email protected] Twitter: @MariaJGrant@HILJnl#hilj Facebook: http://on.fb.me/ovBuiM http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hilj
In this issue. . . From education and the nature of information resources available through to how best to interrogate a particular resource, public health is an overarching theme of this December 2014 issue of the Health Libraries and Information Journal.
In the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, Le undertook an online survey of the information needs of public health students.1 A startling finding was that many students remained unaware of topic-specific public health resources which could greatly aid them in meeting their information needs. Le advocates that libraries need a solid understanding of public health student requirements and, acknowledging their diverse and complex information needs, provides practical suggestions on how direct linking to resources and how to improve the library subject guides on locating hard-to-find resources. Acknowledging that searchers can often feel overwhelmed when seeking to locate citations, Brown et al.2 developed a public health care search strategy for PubMed, translated it into a ‘one-click searching’ facility and evaluated its utility. While refinements were proposed around full text access, with a 77% sensitivity rate, respondents reported overarching benefits in terms of ease of navigation and usefulness. The challenge of locating information on public health interventions is also addressed in a case study of a team’s experience in searching for population-level multi-factor inventions.3 Using the topic of cardiovascular disease prevention, Bayliss et al. compared the sensitivity, precision and number needed to read search strategies of four databases: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ASSIA and PsycINFO. They concluded that greater use of MeSH and search terms for population-level interventions resulted in a more precise search on MEDLINE, which retrieved 91% (31/34) relevant programme citations. Although all four databases needed to be searched to retrieve details of all 34 programmes, the addition of each database improved sensitivity by 9% but detrimentally impacted on precision rates. In the final original article of the year, locating health information was a key consideration for the authors of a systematic review of the role of health information kiosks in diverse settings.4 Examining literature published January 2005 to January 2012, Trout et al. considered locations for health kiosks, kiosk features, application of theoretical framework in the design and development of health kiosks, and the outcomes. They conclude
© 2014 The authors. Health Information and Libraries Journal © 2014 Health Libraries Journal Health Information & Libraries Journal, 31, pp. 251–253
Editorial
that while theoretical driven interventions are needed to examine long-term impacts of health information kiosks, users reported high levels of satisfaction and acceptance of using kiosks in accessing health information in both clinical and community settings. Maria J. Grant Editor, Health Information and Libraries Journal Email: [email protected] Twitter: @MariaJGrant@HILJnl#hilj Facebook: http://on.fb.me/ovBuiM http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hilj
References 1 Le, M. Information needs of public health students. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2014, 31, 274–292. 2 Brown, L., Carne, A., Bywood, P., McIntrye, E., Damarell, R., Lawrence, M. & Tieman, J. Facilitating access to evidence: primary health care search filter. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2014, 31, 293–302. 3 Bayliss, S.E., Davenport, C. & Pennant, M. Where and how to search for information on the effectiveness of public health interventions: a case study for prevention of cardiovascular disease. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2014, 31, 303–313. 4 Trout, K. & Joshi, A. The role of health information kiosks in diverse settings: a systematic review. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2014, 31, 254–273.
© 2014 The authors. Health Information and Libraries Journal © 2014 Health Libraries Journal Health Information & Libraries Journal, 31, pp. 251–253
253
Editorial Peer Review at the Health Information and Libraries Journal Abstract At its best, peer review can mean receiving constructive feedback to help you make the most of your writing. At the Health Information and Libraries Journal, we strive to make the peer review a positive process for both authors and referees. We adopt a process of double-blind peer review. To receive two reviews in a timely manner, three referees are initially invited for each article submitted. The referees are asked to submit their review noting errors, areas of ambiguity or clarification required before the editor and editorial team consider the manuscript ready for publication. As with most journals, it’s unlikely that your writing will be accepted in its original form; a typical outcome will be for a recommendation for major or minor revisions. This is good! It means the editorial team has seen something of likely interest to their readership and wants to help you develop it to a publishable standard. There can be a surprising amount of development and change in a manuscript from original submission through to publication. While you may be experienced in your field, you may not have much experience of writing for publication. As a referee, you get an intriguing insight into the shape of manuscripts in their original form. Keywords: evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP); library and information science; library and information sector; peer reviewing; writing At its best, peer review can mean receiving constructive feedback to help you make the most of your writing. It is impartial, meaning the feedback is presented in an objective and unbiased way, and can help you to achieve the standard of
investigation and reporting expected by those working in your field of practice. At the Health Information and Libraries Journal, we strive to make the peer review a positive process for both authors and referees. We adopt a process of double-blind peer review, which means that the author doesn’t know who will be reviewing their manuscript and the referees don’t know the person who has submitted the writing for consideration. To speed the path of manuscripts through peer review, the Health Information and Libraries Journal invites three referees to review each review or original article submitted to the journal. Most of the times, only two of the three referees are available to review the manuscript, which is fine as generally only two reviews are needed for the editorial team to reach a decision. The referees submit their review noting areas of ambiguity or errors that need to be addressed as well as the general readability and likely interest in the topic area for readers of the Health Information and Libraries Journal; the editor and editorial team then consider whether the manuscript is ready for publication. For extra transparency, in addition to recording the decision to accept, reject or require revisions, the decision letter will also include a statement from the Editor-in-Chief summarising the key points that need addressing. As with most journals, it’s unlikely that your writing will be accepted exactly as it’s submitted. Instead, if your work isn’t rejected outright (was it in scope?), a typical outcome will be for a recommendation for major or minor revisions. This is good! It means the editorial team has seen something of likely interest to our readership and wants to help you develop it to a publishable standard. While this will mean more work, you’re now in a negotiation with the editor and editorial team between reporting your project and drawing out the lessons that can be learnt and shared with our readership.
© 2014 The authors. Health Information and Libraries Journal © 2014 Health Libraries Journal Health Information & Libraries Journal, 31, pp. 251–253
251
252
Editorial
There are benefits for being a referee of the Health Information and Libraries Journal too. While you may be experienced in your field, you may not have much experience of writing for publication. Seeing the high quality of published articles can be daunting for novice writers, so reviewing manuscripts can provide an intriguing insight into the shape of manuscripts in their original form. There can be a surprising amount of development and change in a manuscript from original submission through the publication. Becoming involved in peer review can provide insight into this evolution. For the Health Information and Libraries Journal, refereeing plays an essential part in promoting rigour and contributing to the dissemination of knowledge. We encourage constructive and positive referee comments to help authors develop their work and to raise the general standard of writing within the library and information sector. The editorial team couldn’t do its work without our referees, and a list of those who’ve contributed to this activity in 2014 appears in the acknowledgement of this issue. A big thank you to everyone for their constructive feedback in the past 12 months. If you’ve submitted a manuscript for peer review to the Health Information and Libraries Journal, we hope you found it a positive experience. . . and if you’re interested in supporting the journey of a manuscript from first submission through to publication, get in touch for details about how to join our referee database. Maria J. Grant Editor, Health Information and Libraries Journal Email: [email protected] Twitter: @MariaJGrant@HILJnl#hilj Facebook: http://on.fb.me/ovBuiM http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hilj
In this issue. . . From education and the nature of information resources available through to how best to interrogate a particular resource, public health is an overarching theme of this December 2014 issue of the Health Libraries and Information Journal.
In the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, Le undertook an online survey of the information needs of public health students.1 A startling finding was that many students remained unaware of topic-specific public health resources which could greatly aid them in meeting their information needs. Le advocates that libraries need a solid understanding of public health student requirements and, acknowledging their diverse and complex information needs, provides practical suggestions on how direct linking to resources and how to improve the library subject guides on locating hard-to-find resources. Acknowledging that searchers can often feel overwhelmed when seeking to locate citations, Brown et al.2 developed a public health care search strategy for PubMed, translated it into a ‘one-click searching’ facility and evaluated its utility. While refinements were proposed around full text access, with a 77% sensitivity rate, respondents reported overarching benefits in terms of ease of navigation and usefulness. The challenge of locating information on public health interventions is also addressed in a case study of a team’s experience in searching for population-level multi-factor inventions.3 Using the topic of cardiovascular disease prevention, Bayliss et al. compared the sensitivity, precision and number needed to read search strategies of four databases: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ASSIA and PsycINFO. They concluded that greater use of MeSH and search terms for population-level interventions resulted in a more precise search on MEDLINE, which retrieved 91% (31/34) relevant programme citations. Although all four databases needed to be searched to retrieve details of all 34 programmes, the addition of each database improved sensitivity by 9% but detrimentally impacted on precision rates. In the final original article of the year, locating health information was a key consideration for the authors of a systematic review of the role of health information kiosks in diverse settings.4 Examining literature published January 2005 to January 2012, Trout et al. considered locations for health kiosks, kiosk features, application of theoretical framework in the design and development of health kiosks, and the outcomes. They conclude
© 2014 The authors. Health Information and Libraries Journal © 2014 Health Libraries Journal Health Information & Libraries Journal, 31, pp. 251–253
Editorial
that while theoretical driven interventions are needed to examine long-term impacts of health information kiosks, users reported high levels of satisfaction and acceptance of using kiosks in accessing health information in both clinical and community settings. Maria J. Grant Editor, Health Information and Libraries Journal Email: [email protected] Twitter: @MariaJGrant@HILJnl#hilj Facebook: http://on.fb.me/ovBuiM http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hilj
References 1 Le, M. Information needs of public health students. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2014, 31, 274–292. 2 Brown, L., Carne, A., Bywood, P., McIntrye, E., Damarell, R., Lawrence, M. & Tieman, J. Facilitating access to evidence: primary health care search filter. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2014, 31, 293–302. 3 Bayliss, S.E., Davenport, C. & Pennant, M. Where and how to search for information on the effectiveness of public health interventions: a case study for prevention of cardiovascular disease. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2014, 31, 303–313. 4 Trout, K. & Joshi, A. The role of health information kiosks in diverse settings: a systematic review. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2014, 31, 254–273.
© 2014 The authors. Health Information and Libraries Journal © 2014 Health Libraries Journal Health Information & Libraries Journal, 31, pp. 251–253
253
