Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention

Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention
Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention
CSW
international scientific group of applied preventive medicine I - gap vienna, austria

ISSN 2076-9741/Online

ISSN 2222-386X/Print

Reviewer Guidelines

  1. We are very grateful to our reviewers for taking time to review submitted manuscripts. In order to make best use of that time, this is a brief list of things we will ask you to look for when reviewing. In general we look to publish work which is coherent, valid and adds to the scientific body of knowledge. We don’t specifically put emphasis on levels of perceived interest.
  2.  

  3. If the quality of English needs improving, the reviewers can recommend the manuscript be edited by in-house staff at Clinical Social Work and Health Intervention Journal.
  4.  

  5. Reviewers should indicate major compulsory revisions (if any) by suggesting additional work or clarifications and referring to page numbers on the submitted manuscript.
  6.  

  7. All submitted manuscripts are sent for review unless they are out of scope or below the threshold level of the journal.
  8.  

  9. Unless otherwise stated, the manuscripts will be sent to two experts for an informed recommendation on whether the articles should be accepted for publication. Statistical reviewers are also used where necessary.
  10.  

  11. Typically we employ ‘single-blind’ reviews (reviewer remains anonymous to author, but reviewer knows identity of the author).
  12.  

  13. Once the reviews have been received by the editor, a decision is made whether to accept the manuscript, ask for a revised version, or reject it. Ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions rests with the Editor-in-chief of that journal.
  14.  

  15. Reviewers are asked to declare any competing interests.

 

Reviewer recommendation

 

  1. Based on your assessment of the validity of the manuscript, what would you advise be the next step?
    • Accept without revision
    • Accept with minor essential revisions (which the authors are trusted to make)
    • Major compulsory revision requested
    • Reject because scientifically or ethically unsound
    • Reject because out of scope or too small an advance to publish
  2.  

  3. In addition, we ask you gauge the relative merits of this work and its potential newsworthiness (note this is for manuscript which you recommend be published or revised). This allows us to identify outstanding work and issue press releases. Simply state whether you think this work is:
    • An exceptional article
    • An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
    • An article of importance in its field
    • An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests
    • The whole review should then be submitted as a single file. Note that this is the version the author will receive.

If you wish to make additional, private, comments to the editor, you may do so when uploading the review through the: selfmirror@protonmail.com

 

 

MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION FORM >>