The COVID-19 pandemic caused a rise in preprinting, triggered by the need for open and rapid dissemination of research outputs. We surveyed authors of COVID-19 preprints to learn about their experiences with preprinting their work and also with publishing their work in a peer-reviewed journal. Our research had the following objectives: 1. to learn about authors’ experiences with preprinting, their motivations, and future intentions; 2. to consider preprints in terms of their effectiveness in enabling authors to receive feedback on their work; 3. to compare the impact of feedback on preprints with the impact of comments of editors and reviewers on papers submitted to journals. In our survey, 78% of the new adopters of preprinting reported the intention to also preprint their future work. The boost in preprinting may therefore have a structural effect that will last after the pandemic, although future developments will also depend on other factors, including the broader growth in the adoption of open science practices. A total of 53% of the respondents reported that they had received feedback on their preprints. However, more than half of the feedback was received through “closed” channels–privately to the authors. This means that preprinting was a useful way to receive feedback on research, but the value of feedback could be increased further by facilitating and promoting “open” channels for preprint feedback. Almost a quarter of the feedback received by respondents consisted of detailed comments, showing the potential of preprint feedback to provide valuable comments on research. Respondents also reported that, compared to preprint feedback, journal peer review was more likely to lead to major changes to their work, suggesting that journal peer review provides significant added value compared to feedback received on preprints. The COVID-19 pandemic has arguably illustrated the value of open and rapid dissemination of scientific research on a global scale. All participants in the scholarly communication system, including research funders, publishers, infrastructure providers and research institutions, were prompted to reconsider their policies to respond to the public crisis, with most adopting more open approaches, aiming to make COVID-19 research openly or freely accessible. Early in the pandemic, a statement on “Sharing research data and findings relevant to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak” (“Coronavirus [COVID-19]: sharing research data”) was issued by “COVID-19 papers should be made available via open access preprint servers prior to publication in journals.”In April 2020, a group of publishers and related organisations came together and launched the COVID-19 Rapid Review Initiative “to maximise the efficiency of peer review, ensuring that key work related to COVID-19 is reviewed and published as quickly and openly as possible” . The ResAs part of this evaluation, we conducted a survey study aimed at developing a better understanding of the experience of COVID-19 preprint authors with respect to the following: 1.Preprint posting. When did the authors of COVID-19 preprints publish their first preprints? What were their primary motivations for preprinting their COVID-19 work? And what were their intentions regarding preprinting future research outputs? 2.Feedback on preprints. What proportion of COVID-19 preprints received feedback? What were the main channels of feedback? And what was the nature and impact of the feedback? 3.Journal peer review. To what extent and in what ways did comments made by editors and reviewers of journals change papers? How did the effect of journal peer review differ from the effect of feedback on preprints?A number of studies show that increasing attention is being given to preprints, with new servers being set up and preprints being seen as enabling early and rapid dissemination of research outputs . The incIt has been found that authors also place great value on the opportunity to receive feedback on their work when posting it as a preprint . HoweverThe COVID-19 pandemic created a pressing need to rapidly share research outputs globally . As a meThe widespread adoption of preprinting during the pandemic prompted discussion regarding the credibility of research posted on preprint servers–research that typically has not been peer reviewed . AddressTo gather opinions on these issues, we surveyed authors of COVID-19 preprints posted on arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv and ChemRxiv in 2020. The survey was carried out using the Qualtrics XM software. We presented the authors with 36 questions about their experience of posting their paper on a preprint server and submitting it to a journal. However, the total number of questions answered by any individual participant varied depending on which ‘pathway’ they took through the survey based on several factors, such as whether or not their paper had been published in a journal. The questions in the survey were grouped into three main sections: •Demographic questions–including the country in which the authors’ were based, type of research institution, research experience, and gender. •Experience of preprinting–including motivations and future intentions concerning preprinting, channels through which feedback on the preprint was received, and changes in preprints resulting from the feedback. •Experience of journal submission and the journal peer review process–including the opinion of the authors about the differences in peer review of COVID-19 papers compared with their former experience of article publishing and changes made to the paper in response to journal peer review.The survey included both mandatory and optional questions of different types. Some were simple closed questions, such as “Is your paper now published in a peer-reviewed journal?”, to which respondents could respond “Yes” or “No”. There were also multiple choice and Likert scale questions. These included a “Don’t know/can’t remember/not applicable” or “Other, please specify in the box below” option. Respondents were also able to revise their responses by clicking the “Back” button in the online survey tool.The survey was piloted by ten people: two individuals affiliated with journal publishers, two affiliated with preprint service providers, and six researchers recruited by the project team. A copy of the questionnaire and survey data is available in figshare . We obtahttps://connect.biorxiv.org/relate/content/181”. In the case of arXiv, we considered all preprints in the collection “COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from arXiv”. Because ChemRxiv did not provide such a COVID-19 collection, we created a search query and identified all preprints posted in 2020 whose title or abstract included “coronavirus”, “covid-19”, “sars-cov”, “ncov-2019”, “2019-ncov”, “hcov-19”, or “sars-2”.The titles of COVID-19 preprints posted in 2020 and the contact details of their authors were collected directly from the four preprint servers, by manually copying the information from the page of each preprint. For bioRxiv and medRxiv we considered all preprints in the collection “Some researchers were corresponding author of multiple COVID-19 preprints. We therefore deduplicated the names of corresponding authors using the “Remove Duplicates” option in Microsoft Excel. In case of multiple preprints with the same corresponding author, only the first preprint was retained. This yielded a list of 12,230 COVID-19 preprint titles, names of the corresponding authors, and their email addresses. 12% of the preprints were from arXiv, 17% from bioRxiv, 62% from medRxiv, and 9% from ChemRxiv. We then emailed the corresponding authors, inviting them to participate in our survey. They were sent a personal link to take part in the survey. Personal links provided by Qualtrics XM prevented participants from completing the survey multiple times. We did not offer any incentives to participate in the survey, and we did not contact potential participants other than by email. For instance, we did not advertise the survey on the Internet. Invitations were sent in batches between May 20 and May 26, 2021. Of the 12,230 invitations, 305 bounced and 523 failed, so 11,402 invitations were sent successfully. The survey stayed open for 55 days. It was closed on July 14, 2021. The survey data was stored in Leiden University’s cloud storage.Of the 11,402 corresponding authors that received an invitation to participate in the survey, 826 chose to participate, resulting in a participation rate of 7%. 673 participants completed the survey, giving a completion rate of 81%. Of the 673 respondents, 18.4% had posted their preprint on arXiv, 14.1% on bioRxiv, 57.7% on medRxiv and 6.8% on ChemRxiv. A total of 3.0% of the respondents answered that they had posted their preprint on a different platform. These respondents probably misunderstood the question, since their preprint had in fact been posted on one of the four preprint servers considered in our study. Alternatively, it could be that some respondents had posted their preprint on multiple servers.To calculate confidence intervals for the proportions or percentages reported in this article, we used the normal approximation of the binomial proportion confidence interval. Confidence intervals are reported at a 95% confidence level and denoted by the ± sign. In addition to quantitative data, the survey yielded qualitative responses through open-ended questions and comment boxes. These responses were coded using ATLAS.ti. Extracts from qualitative responses quoted below have been lightly edited, for instance to correct typographical errors.Of the survey’s respondents, 516 (76.7%) described their gender as “man”, 137 (20.4%) as “woman”, 16 (2.4%) responded “prefer not to say”, and four (0.6%) responded “prefer to self-describe” (free-text responses included “non-binary” and “genderfluid”). Responses were received from researchers with different levels of experience in conducting research ; 126  indicated other platforms where their preprint was located . We do not know the reason for this, but it is possible that their preprint was deposited on more than one server.For each of the four preprint servers considered in our survey, n = 673) were primarily motivated to “achieve early and rapid dissemination” of their work (86.2% ± 2.6%), make their work “openly available” (63.9% ± 3.6%) and “increase opportunities for feedback from readers” (31.2% ± 3.5%). Of all respondents, 97.0% chose at least one of these advantages of preprinting as their main motivation. Further details are provided in To understand authors’ motivations for preprinting their COVID-19 work, the survey listed possible motivations based on the findings of a previous study . AuthorsAdditional comments regarding the importance of achieving early and rapid dissemination during the pandemic were expressed by 25 survey participants, with different levels of experience of preprinting:“We felt it was important to make our research available in a timely manner as the peer-review process can be time consuming.” (Author with 3–5 years of research experience who first preprinted their work in 2020/2021.)“Wanted to get this work on vaccine design disseminated as early as possible for further work in urgent vaccine development.” (Author with more than 25 years of research experience who first preprinted their work in 2020/2021.)n = 673), 83.1% (± 2.8%) declared that they intended to post at least some of their work on a preprint server in the future. Just 6.4% (± 1.8%) of respondents declared that they did not intend to post future work on a preprint server. We were also specifically interested in the future intentions of new contributors to preprint servers. Among authors who first posted their work on a preprint server during the pandemic (n = 449), 78.0% (± 3.8%) also planned to preprint at least some of their future works. This may suggest that the pandemic, possibly in combination with other developments , will lead to long-term changes in authors’ preprinting practices.Among all respondents (n = 673), 52.8% (± 3.8%) reported receiving feedback on their preprint. e.g., emails to the author, rather than just public comments on the preprint server. In contrast, Since receiving feedback is often argued to be one of the key advantages of posting preprints , we askeWe also analysed the breakdown by preprint server. As e.g., given directly on a preprint server 19.6% ± 3.2%), peer review platform (3.3% ± 1.5%), or social media (18.7% ±3.2%). Feedback was classified as “closed” when it was given privately to the author, e.g., by email (41.9 ±4.0%) or during meetings with colleagues (13% ± 2.7%). Overall, 54.9% (± 4.1%) of all feedback on preprints reported by respondents was given in a “closed” way, whereas 41.6% (± 4.0%) of feedback was given in an “open” way.To learn more about the channels for receiving feedback, we asked authors how they received comments on their preprint. Results reported by the survey participants are illustrated in n = 56) reported that 50.0% (±13.1%) of feedback received on their preprint was given directly on the preprint server, while for medRxiv authors (n = 200), this was the case for 38.5% (± 6.7%) of feedback received. These results may suggest the value of the possibility to provide feedback on a preprint directly on the preprint server. arXiv and ChemRxiv do not provide this possibility. We were also interested in the nature of the feedback given, particularly whether it contained detailed comments. In the survey, we asked authors to report whether they received “detailed feedback on the research presented in the preprint”. Alternative options given in the survey were, “brief feedback ”, “comments with thanks for the paper, retweets, etc.”, “suggestions on extending the research in new areas for further research”, and “requests from other authors to cite their work”. In 25.4% ( ± 4.5%) of the cases, authors reported receiving detailed feedback on their research.Notably, bioRxiv authors (n = 56) had the highest percentage of detailed feedback, at 32.1% (± 12.2%). However, due to the limited number of responses per preprint server, statistical uncertainty is high, and we therefore cannot draw clear conclusions on differences between the various servers.For each preprint server, we analysed the percentage of preprints for which the author considered the feedback received to be of a detailed nature. n = 243) and 5.3% (± 2.8%) (n = 244) of respondents who received feedback and answered this question declared that they had made major changes to the discussion/conclusion and results section of their preprint, respectively. For other sections, this percentage was even lower. As seen in The final issue related to preprint feedback in the survey was the extent to which authors made changes to their preprints after receiving feedback. We asked authors to indicate to what extent changes had been made as a result of feedback on the different sections of their preprint. We listed the main sections and asked authors to indicate whether “minor changes” or “major changes” had been made. We did not attempt to define the terms “minor” and “major”, instead relying on participants’ perceptions and interpretations of the terms. Many participants were probably familiar with similar terminology that is commonly used in journal peer review processes. n = 673) had submitted their article to a peer-reviewed journal. The remaining 12.8% reported various reasons why their papers had not been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. For instance, the authors (n = 86) reported that their article had not yet been completed (19.8% ± 8.4%), that they had not yet decided whether to publish their article in a peer-reviewed journal (18.6% ± 8.2%), and that their article required more feedback (14.0% ± 7.3%). However, the most common reason reported by authors for not submitting their article to a peer-reviewed journal is that they had decided not to do so (26.7% ± 9.4%). Some commented that the preprint was sufficient to draw attention to the study and noted shortcomings in the journal publication process, such as a long peer review time and expensive article publication charges:In our survey 87.2% of COVID-19 preprint authors “The peer-review process is so long that the paper would no longer be timely by the time it was completed.” “I have no possibility to pay for that. It was my own project.” n = 587), 61.8% (± 3.9%) reported that their paper had already been published by the journal. For authors whose articles had not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal (n = 224), the most common reason, reported by 45.5% ( ± 6.5%), was that the article was still under review. The second most common reason, accounting for 30.8% (±6.0%), was rejection by the journal. The main reasons given for rejection were low quality and scope. At the same time, more than half of the authors who reported that their article was rejected stated that they intended to resubmit their article to another peer-reviewed journal.Among authors who submitted their article to a peer-reviewed journal (n = 587) about the order in which they had submitted their COVID-19 paper to a preprint server and a journal, we found that 53.0% (± 4.0%) first posted their work on a preprint server and then submitted it to a journal. A further 35.3% (± 3.9%) reported that posting the preprint and submitting the article happened at the same time. This aligns with an earlier survey conducted by e.g., early dissemination).Asking the authors , it was 13.2% (± 3.5%). A total of 19.1% (± 4.1%) of authors indicated making major changes to the results and 21.2% (± 4.2%) to the discussion/conclusion sections of their articles in response to comments of reviewers and/or editors. The percentage of minor changes reported by authors varied between 53% and 65% for most sections.The authors reported major changes to approximately the same extent for the title, abstract and introduction sections of the article, accounting for around 10%of responses. For the methods section (n = 355), this was the case for, respectively, 9.9% (± 3.1%) and 62.5% (± 5.0%) of the articles.Our results with regard to abstracts are reasonably aligned with earlier research by In the cases of both preprint feedback and journal peer review, the authors indicated that the results and discussion/conclusion sections were most subjected to major changes. We, therefore, compared the effect of preprint feedback and journal peer review on these two sections. To enable a balanced comparison, We then asked the authors to what extent they had made specific types of changes to their papers to address comments made by reviewers and/or editors. The results are shown in To examine possible effects of initiatives of publishers to accelerate the publication process for COVID-19 papers , we alson = 363), 35.5% (± 4.9%) reported that the time spent on peer review of their COVID-19 paper was shorter compared with their prior experiences, while 39.4% (± 5.0%) of the participants evaluated the peer review duration as longer. 39.7% (± 5.0%) agreed with the statement that “the time between submission of the revised version and acceptance was shorter than normal” for their COVID-19 paper, while 29.2% ( ± 4.7%) disagreed. The process of publishing an article after it was accepted was assessed as shorter than prior experiences by 46.8% (± 5.1%) of respondents, while 22% (± 4.3%) assessed it as longer  and openly (63.9%) disseminate their research and receive feedback (31.2%). This result aligns well with previous studies. e.g., on a preprint server, peer review platform or social media.Preprints have been useful for prompting feedback on COVID-19 research: more than half of the survey respondents reported that they received feedback on their preprint. 41.6% of the feedback was given in an “open” way, n = 673) reported receiving feedback on their preprints directly on a preprint server. Similar to our findings, Approximately 17% of all authors .In our survey, authors who posted their COVID-19 preprints on bioRxiv and medRxiv reported that respectively 50.0% and 38.5% of the feedback on their work was received directly on the preprint server. arXiv and ChemRxiv do not offer the possibility of receiving feedback directly on the preprint server. The results for bioRxiv and medRxiv may suggest significant value in offering a commenting option directly on the preprint server to stimulate open feedback on preprints. Preprint servers that do not have this function might usefully consider adding it. However, considering the challenges mentioned by At the same time, the majority of the feedback reported by our survey participants was received in a “closed” way–privately to the authors. The alignment between our findings and previous studies regarding various aspects of preprint commenting suggests that the high rate of privately provided feedback on preprints observed in our study may not be unusual. This indicates the need for future studies to explore in more detail the extent to which preprints receive private feedback and the motivations for giving feedback privately rather than publicly.To evaluate the potential of preprint peer review, we asked the surveyed authors about the nature of the feedback given on their preprint. The nature of the comments on bioRxiv was earlier analysed for non-COVID-19 research , where oAccording to our respondents, the results section of their paper was altered in major ways in 1.9% of cases as a result of preprint feedback and in 10.1% of cases as a result of journal peer review. In the discussion/conclusion section of their paper, major changes were made in 2.8% of cases as a result of preprint feedback and in 11.3% of cases as a result of journal peer review. This seems to suggest a greater added value of journal peer review compared to feedback on preprints. It also may indicate that making changes as a result of peer reviewer comments when submitting to a journal is seen as less ‘optional’ than making changes in response to feedback on a preprint.Although preprints still constitute only a relatively small proportion of the total publications in many fields, the results of our study show the increasing interest in preprinting among survey participants. Previous studies  confirm One aspect of this is preprint peer review , for whiOur study confirms the potential of feedback on preprints to provide valuable comments on research leading to greater efficiency in scholarly publishing. There are various future scenarios in which preprint servers, supported by different reviewing tools and services, could complement journal peer review, or even serve as an alternative to traditional peer-reviewed journals. There is a need for further research to establish robust evidence of approaches that can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of scholarly publishing and can guide future developments.Our study was restricted to four preprint servers, arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, and ChemRxiv, representing around 55% of all COVID-19 preprints posted in 2020 . The remLike most survey studies, our research has a self-selection bias, since corresponding authors of COVID-19 preprints who received an email invitation decided themselves whether or not to take part in the survey. We were unable to test the representativeness of the respondents for factors such as the respondents’ country of residence, type of research institution, research experience, and gender in relation to the general population’s distribution, as we lacked data on these variables.Finally, we did not conduct any further analysis to demonstrate the robustness of the results obtained from questions containing the terms “minor changes” and “major changes”. Rather than explicitly defining the terms “minor” and “major”, we relied on the perceptions and interpretations of participants, as these terms are commonly used in journal peer review processes.


International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM) is a peer-reviewed, gold open access, and scientific multidisciplinary journal, with a specific focus on health policy and management research. It serves as a platform that brings together specialists from various fields, including health policy, health management, health economics, epidemiology, public health, global health, and social and public policy into a dynamic academic environment. The journal aims to foster effective communication among policy-makers, health system researchers, decision-makers, legislators, practitioners, educators, administrators, students, and allied health professionals, facilitating collaboration and knowledge sharing within the research and healthcare delivery systems. The . From 2013 to 2023, there has been a consistent growth in the number of monthly manuscripts submitted to IJHPM, with an average of 16 submissions in 2013 to 71 in 2023. Out of a total of 7107 submissions received, 1698 peer-reviewed articles were published in IJHPM, representing approximately 24% of the total submissions. The IJHPM was founded by Dr. Akram Khayatzadeh-Mahani  in early 2013. Its first issue was published on June 25, 2013, marking its entry into the competitive international landscape. Approaching its 10th anniversary in June 2023, IJHPM has achieved notable milestones. Over this period, IJHPM published 12 volumes and 112 issues, including four special issues®), WoS Journal Citation Reports (Science Edition), WoS Social Sciences Citation Index®, WoS Current Contents® , MEDLINE, Scopus, EBSCOhost, PubMed Central (PMC), and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). In June 2022, the WoS JCR released its last impact factor (IF) of 4.967, positioning IJHPM as the 10th-ranked journal out of 88 in the “Health Policy & Services” category. This achievement places IJHPM in the first quartile (Q1). The journal’s papers are indexed in several abstracting and indexing databases, and they are highly regarded by scientists. IJHPM is currently indexed in various prestigious databases, including the Web of Science Journal Citation Reports (WoS JCR) , WoS Science Citation Index Expanded , students, and IJHPM reviewers.ICMJE), Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Furthermore, the IJHPM’s editorial office continually evaluates the quality of processes and implemented some innovative actions to advance its rank among leading scientific journals. For instance, in order to standardize sex and gender reporting in research publications, we began incorporating the Sex and Gender in Research (SAGER) guideline1 into our author guide in May 2021 and encouraged our authors to follow it. In April 2023, we switched to the CRediT format in accordance with the updated technical requirements in PubMed for reporting the authors’ contributions. In the beginning, the five-year vision was to be indexed in PMC, Medline, Scopus, and WoS by 2018. Therefore, we designed the journal’s processes and workflow, such as the peer review process, technical standards, and the website, based on the four abstracting and indexing evaluation criteria and also followed international and reputable guidelines like the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors , marking a notable achievement. Subsequently, by 2017, IJHPM was accepted for inclusion in Scopus, further solidifying its position in the academic community. One of the primary objectives outlined in IJHPM’s five-year vision was to attain an official IF. This goal was successfully realized by the end of 2018, with the first IF of IJHPM being released by JCR 2019, garnering an impressive IF of 4.485. This achievement underscored the growing influence and impact of IJHPM within its field. The progress of IJHPM’s citation database has continued to thrive, culminating in its current ranking of 10th position in the field, as reported by JCR 2021. The persistent growth and recognition of IJHPM’s scholarly contributions are evident in its citation database progress. A graphical representation of the timeline progress of IJHPM is presented in 83 Furthermore, IJHPM has published four special issue editorials,64 three guest editorials, and two joint global editorials on the climate change movement.8 IJHPM has successfully attracted the collaboration of renowned scholars from around the world, who have established themselves as leading experts in their respective fields. Currently, our editorial board consists of 24 esteemed members, comprising eight women and 16 men, representing 12 countries across five continents. All members actively contribute to reviewing papers, writing editorial papers, and the exchange of ideas aimed at enhancing the overall quality of the journal. Over the past decade, these dedicated board members have played an instrumental role in publishing 69 editorial papers. Over the past decade, IJHPM has experienced several modifications in its editorial board and office members. However, the most notable change occurred in September 2021 when Dr. Akram Khayatzadeh-Mahani resigned from her position as the Editor-in-Chief after dedicating eight years (January 2013 to September 2021) to establishing and enhancing IJHPM’s reputation. Although her absence is deeply felt, IJHPM is grateful to have her ongoing support as the founding editor (October 2021-current). In October 2021, Professor Ali-Akbar Haghdoost, the former director-in-charge of IJHPM, assumed the position of Editor-in-Chief at IJHPM. Alongside him, three new associate editors joined the IJHPM team to assist with daily editorial duties and work closely with the editorial office members. Currently, IJHPM has a team of five in-house editors, six staff members, and one consultant. The detailed information of editorial board members, in-house editors, and staff is presented in Table S1 . Over the course of 10 years, IJHPM has contributed significantly to academic discourse by publishing a total of 1698 peer-reviewed articles. Throughout its publication history, IJHPM has featured a diverse range of scientific article types, with a total of 14 distinct categories. However, over time, six of these article types have been discontinued, resulting in the current selection of eight types that are presently published: editorial, viewpoint, review articles, original article, short communication, commentary, correspondence, and letter to editor. For a comprehensive overview of the distribution of each article type published by IJHPM over the past decade, refer to  On average, IJHPM receives approximately 690 manuscript submissions annually with a 9% acceptance rate. Over the years, there has been a noticeable upward trend in the number of submissions, particularly since 2018 when the submission rate accelerated even further. Notably, the highest number of submissions was recorded in 2020, with a total of 1471 manuscripts received. This upward trend in submissions could potentially be attributed to the journal’s commendable IF score and increased visibility within the academic community. However, since 2021, there has been a decrease in the number of submissions, which may be linked to changes in the journal’s business model, including the implementation of article processing charges (APC) for authors. The submission trend of IJHPM is shown in  To ensure the high quality of published articles, the editor-in-chief and section editors of IJHPM conduct a thorough pre-screening of all submissions. This pre-screening process involves assessing the manuscripts for their methodological rigor, originality, contribution to knowledge and practice, as well as the use of English language. Based on the outcome of this pre-screening, manuscripts will be either fast rejected, sent back to authors for revision and resubmit, or sent for external peer review. Manuscripts that meet the IJHPM’s priority and quality criteria will undergo a double-blind peer-review process to evaluate the content quality. In the pre-screening stage, approximately 80% of IJHPM submissions are rejected, and only 20% proceed to the external peer review. This stringent selection process guarantees that only the highest quality and most relevant articles are considered for publication in IJHPM. The IJHPM upholds a rigorous double-blind peer-review process that prioritizes speed, fairness, and the publication of high-quality articles. Reviewers, selected based on their scientific background, expertise, and authors’ recommendations, are required to disclose conflicts of interest and maintain strict confidentiality. The IJHPM strives to obtain at least two strong and comprehensive reviews for each manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief and section editors carefully consider reviewers’ comments and prepare decision letters, which undergo multiple rounds of review before final acceptance or rejection. Once accepted, the technical team will publish the author-accepted version of the manuscript (AAM) while producing the PDF proof. Publishing the AAM version expedites the dissemination of accepted manuscripts, making them available on the IJHPM website within three days of acceptance. The journal currently follows an annual publication schedule, with any changes in publication frequency are shown in  The IJHPM has published articles from 5794 authors across 105 countries. The majority of authors are affiliated with the United Kingdom (n = 651), the United States (n = 649), Iran (n = 621), Canada (n = 590), and Australia (n = 543).  Since its inception in July 2013, the journal has established a dynamic platform that fosters global collaboration and facilitates discussions on contemporary issues through its commentary and correspondence line. This initiative invites scholars to contribute commentaries following the publication of various article types, such as original research, reviews, and editorials. The commentaries received are then compiled and shared with the main authors, who provide responses that are subsequently published as correspondence papers. These collections of commentaries and correspondence papers create a special compendium, enabling in-depth exploration of specific topics with contributions from scholars worldwide. From July 2013 to May 2023, a total of 136 collections have been published, encompassing 589 commentaries and 93 correspondence papers. Since its establishment, the IJHPM has garnered the collaboration of 4339 reviewers from 108 countries. Notable, the majority of reviewers are from Australia (n = 280), Canada (n = 272), the United States (n = 260), the United Kingdom (n = 159), and China (n = 151). The selection process for reviewers employed by IJHPM is characterized by its unique approach, which involves comprehensive database searches to identify individuals with expertise relevant to the manuscripts under consideration. Invitations to serve as reviewers are then sent via the journal’s management system, with the goal of securing at least five agreements for research manuscripts and three agreements for short manuscripts. To achieve this goal, up to 50 reviewers may be invited per manuscript. The IJHPM’s global reach is reflected in the diverse backgrounds of its reviewers, as highlighted in  Based on data from the WoS database, the IJHPM has received a notable total of 12 210 citations. The JHPM H-index in WoS is 41, and the average number of citations per article is 8.3. In the “Health Policy & Services” (SSCI) category, the IJHPM holds an impressive 10th position out of 88 journals, and in the “Health Care Sciences & Services” (SCIE) category, it ranks 20th out of 109 journals. Furthermore, the IJHPM has achieved a Q1 ranking in both categories, highlighting its prominence and impact in the field. The journal reached its highest IF of 5.007 based on the JCR 2020.  From 2013, the IJHPM amassed a significant total of 13 877 citations in Scopus. The IJHPM H-index in Scopus is 45, and the journal’s current CiteScore is 6.5, securing the top position among 36 journals in the “leadership and management” category. The IJHPM is listed in five subject categories in Scopus and is classified as a Q1 journal in all of them. 175 authored by Zachary Munn, Sandeep Moola, Dagmara Riitano, and Karolina Lisy in 2014 has received the highest number of citations overall is.Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel, Professor Carol Molinari, Dr. Owen Adams, and Professor Ian Greener contributed to the seminar by sending pre-recorded videos. The event also witnessed the active participation of renowned Iranian scholars in the field, who attended in person and engaged in fruitful discussions, further enriching the seminar’s outcomes. On April 19, 2014, the IJHPM team held an impactful international seminar focused on the theme of “improving quality and efficiency of health services by introducing market incentives, competition, and choice: opportunities and challenges” . The sem This editorial aimed to provide an assessment of the progress and evolution of the IJHPM over the past decade. Despite being a relatively new journal in the health policy and management field based in a resource-limited LMIC, the IJHPM has demonstrated remarkable growth in both quality and quantity measures. With its emphasis on timely high-quality publication and a commitment to fostering scholarly discourse, the IJHPM has become one of the leading and reputable journals for researchers in the health policy and management field. By implementing a culture that values quality, respect, fairness, inclusiveness, teamwork and collaboration, innovation, and speed, the journal has established itself as a valuable resource for academics, policymakers, and practitioners. These values permeate all IJHPM activities and we will keep them in focus while continuing to expand our capacity to meet the growing demands for high-quality publications. Moving forward, the IJHPM is poised to continue its upward trajectory and contribute to the advancement of health policy and management research. These achievements would have been impossible without the continuous and hard efforts of highly dedicated and committed IJHPM editorial office members, active and supportive editorial board members, dedicated reviewers, respected authors, and supportive loyal readers. We thank the IJHPM office staff, particularly Hafez Mohammadhassanzadeh, Fatemeh Molaei, and Zeinab Golestanikhah, for their great assistance. Not applicable. All authors are in-house editors at the IJHPM.[1] Special Issue on Analysing the Politics of Health Policy Change in LMICs, July 2021; edited by Lucy Gilson, Zubin Cyrus Shroff, and Maylene Shung-King. Special Issue on WHO-CHOICE Update, November 2021; edited by Melanie Y. Bertram, Tessa Tan Torres Edejer, and led by Mohammad Hajizadeh. Special Issue on Political Economy of Food Systems, December 2021; edited by Phillip Baker, Jennifer Lacy-Nichols, Ronald Labonté, and Owain Williams. Special Issue on CHS-Connect, January 2022; edited by Helen Schneider, Anna-Karin Hurtig, Joseph Zulu, Uta Lehmann, Miguel San Sebastian, and Charles Michelo[2] We have included here the invited-only articles . Without the invited-only articles, the acceptance rate is 9% .[3] On March 2021, Mendeley retired the public groups so the public page of IJHPM in Mendeley were removed (https://blog.mendeley.com/2020/11/02/weve-listened-to-our-users-and-are-refocusing-on-whats-important-to-them/); last access: May 21, 2023Supplementary file 1. IJHPM Editors Including in-house Editors, Editorial Board Members, and Staff Members.Click here for additional data file.Supplementary file 2. IJHPM International Seminar’s Agenda.Click here for additional data file.


This is the authors’ response to peer-review reports for "Supporting Technologiesfor COVID-19 Prevention: Systemized Review".The manuscript  talks ab1. My main concern is that several technologies are missing, so I am not sure if the review on Google search was carried out properly. There must definitely be over 90 technologies. If you check the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) In Vitro Diagnostics, there are over 240 test kits alone. Additionally, I am not sure how you reach to 38 items from 90, or are there so many unrelated items?Authors' response: The title has been adjusted to narrow down the search range. Moreover, detailed selection criteria have been included.2. The images in the figures, especially on company products, need actual permission from the original company or inventor. For example, the image citing reference 2 is a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) article, but the actual image is from a hospital whose permission is needed, rather than citing BBC.Authors' response: Proper citation has been done through the company website.3. Several topics are outdated as of now, such as personal protective equipment. The interest in smart or green personal protective equipment has declined dramatically as vaccination has picked up. Therefore, the text needs to be made aligned to current needs, such as low-temperature storage technologies to store vaccines, etc.The ventilators section is interesting, but such images have been shown before in many places. As such, it will be difficult to garner readership based on the sections.Authors' response: The vaccine storage is very interesting. However, due to the length of this review paper, it is difficult to explore a whole new different topic.4. Several points are repeated throughout the manuscript, such as lack of manpower and resources. The flow of the text could be made more fast paced by removing general statements and sticking to facts only.Authors' response: The manuscript has been checked to avoid general statements.5. New and interesting topics could be added based on the current status of the pandemic, such as technologies centering around vaccination or at-home testing.Authors' response: At-home testing has been mentioned in the article.The need for effective and rapid response mechanisms to the COVID-19 pandemic has seen the emergence of new technologies. The European Parliament has organized such technologies into 10 broad categories. Many studies have reported the emergence of new digital tools as a direct response to COVID-19. While some of the studies report that these technologies make a major impact in the management of COVID-19 despite some challenges in their real-life usage, others acknowledge that COVID-19 control is critical, which calls for regular stock-taking, given the rapid advances in the field. Following the above, the authors of the paper “Supporting Technologies for COVID-19 Prevention: Systemized Review,”  in an at1. The title of the paper does not conform to the journal guidelines.Authors' response: The title has been adjusted.2. The Abstract of your paper needs to be structured following the recommended guidelines.Authors' response: The abstract has been adjusted.3. This paper neither has a research objective nor question to permit its evaluation.Authors' response: research objective has been added.4. You need to follow the guidelines of the journal to which you are submitting.Authors' response: The guideline has been double-checked.5. Kindly refer to the new PRISMA checklist to see how you can report your search results.Authors' response: The PRISMA checklist has been double-checked.6. You need to have a look at the reviews published in the journal you are submitting to.Authors' response: The newly published work has been double-checked.7. The English of your paper needs to be improved.Authors’ response: English has been checked thoroughly.8. The Methods section lacks clarity and warrants improvement.Authors’ response: The method section has been improved.9. Your references need to be in line with the journal guidelines.Authors’ response: The references have been edited.The above specific comments are further divided into the below major and minor comments;1. Firstly, you need to identify and report the type of review you conducted to help in the evaluation of your paper. If this is a narrative review, kindly indicate clearly in your paper2. I suggest the following: (1) Emerging Medical Technologies for Fighting COVID-19: Systematic Review; or (2) Emerging Medical Technologies for Fighting COVID-19: Narrative Review3. Your abstract needs to be structured in line with the journal guidelines, to include the Background, Objective, Methods, Results, and Conclusion subsections. Additionally, be aware that the PRISMA checklist also provides additional information that must appear in the Abstract section of systematic reviews.Authors’ response: The title has been changed to: Systematic Review of Supporting Technologies for COVID Prevention3. Your abstract needs to be structured in line with the journal guidelines, to include the Background, Objective, Methods, Results, and Conclusion subsections. Additionally, be aware that the PRISMA checklist also provides additional information that must appear in the Abstract section of systematic reviews.Authors’ response: The abstract has been restructured.4. Kindly restructure the manuscript using the IMRD format using the following word template;Authors’ response: The journal guideline has been checked.5. It is absolutely important to read through the journal guidelines to which you are submitting.Authors’ response: The journal guideline has been checked.6. Kindly put your study in context as part of your introduction. Use the provided reference if you need help with how to put your study in context.Authors’ response: The reference has been used to add more content to the introduction.7. This study is without a research objective. State your research question and objectives.Authors’ response: The research objective has been added to the abstract.8. Kindly report the Methods section using the subsections below:Study objectivesEligibility criteria for selected studiesHow literature was searchedThe method used to synthesize resultsData management and analysisQuality assessment (including the risk of bias assessments)How missing data were handledHeterogeneity assessmentThe method used to present data and resultsThe above may vary depending on the type of review you undertook. A simple literature review of emerging technologies will normally not require some of the above subsections.Authors’ response: The Methods section has been restructured to include some of the bullet points above.9. It is very important to indicate the guidelines used to report your review results.Authors’ response: The guideline PRISMA 2020 has been mentioned in the Methods section.10. Your results section should be reported based on your research objectives (yet to be defined), and should include the following:a. Search results: [a] flow diagram based on the new PRISMA flow chart and [b] characteristics of included studies (table and discussion).b. Risk of bias assessmentc. Synthesis results (report results based on objectives and the different technology categories)d. Overall assessment of the body of evidencee. HeterogeneityAgain, as highlighted above, a literature review will not require some of the above points . That said, if you did a narrative review, I suggest using the following reported guidelines. I also find the structure of this referenced narrative review and systematic review more robust (use these as references in reporting your review). In reporting a narrative review, it is important to bear in mind how narrative reviews are evaluated. Moreover, be aware that review papers are expected to be submitted with a filled template of the guidelines used.Authors’ response: The research objectives have been defined in the Methods section. The new PRISMA flow chart has been added into the manuscript.11. You need to have a look at studies that have reported on similar topics for inspiration.Authors’ response: The articles have been thoroughly read and cited in the manuscript.12. See guidelines for the structure of the Discussion section. Present your Discussion into (1) Principal findings and (2) Comparison with prior studies.Authors’ response: The Discussion section has been reorganized.13. Kindly include a subsection “study limitations” as part of the Discussion section.Authors’ response: The study limitation has been included as part of the Discussion section.14. Your references have to be in line with the recommended journal guidelines. Set your reference manager to the AMA citation style and make sure to include a PubMed ID at the end of each reference. You can search the PubMed IDs of various articles at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/. In the absence of a PubMed ID, kindly include a DOI (verify your DOIs using https://www.doi.org/).Authors’ response: The reference has been checked.15. Include a subsection “Author Contribution” after the Acknowledgments section to state the contribution of each author included in this paper.Authors’ response: The section has been added.16. Include a subsection “Conflicts of Interest” after Author contributions to declare any conflict of interest.Authors’ response: The section has been added.17. Kindly list all Multimedia Appendices before the References.Authors’ response: No Multimedia Appendices in this manuscript.18. For referenced websites, ensure to make as much effort as possible to get and reference the pdf version of the article .Authors’ response: PDF of the websites have been added.19. Create a section “Abbreviations” after your references to list and expand all abbreviations in the text.Authors’ response: The section “Abbreviations” has been added.20. I suggest starting your Conclusion with a statement on the study objectives followed by a summary of findings, then lessons learned from your findings, and finally, suggested direction of future research.Authors’ response: The conclusion has been restructured.1. Kindly include only the corresponding author in the manuscript and create or include all coauthors in the metadata section of the online manuscript management system (MMS) of your journal profile.Authors’ response: The title page has been changed accordingly.2. End your introduction with the aim of the study.Authors’ response: The aim of the study has been added.3. Kindly format your table following the journal guidelines.Authors’ response: The table has been reformatted according to the guidelines.4. You may want to start your Table 1 with study id, by merging columns 1, 2, and the last as 1 column. For instance, the first cell will be Rendeki et al (2020), followed by the “setting or country” in the second column, and then the description, etc.Authors’ response: Table 1 has been restructured.5. Following from (4) above, I recommend having (1) a table of characteristics of included studies for each category of technology or (2) present a single table of “Characteristics of included studies” under the Search Results subsection of the Results section, after the PRISMA flow diagram.Authors’ response: The table of characteristics has been added for each category of technology.6. I suggest attempting to format your Figure 1 following the new PRISMA diagram.Authors’ response: Figure 1 has been reformatted.7. Review all your figures and their captions in line with the guidelines. Apart from being uploaded as Multimedia Appendices, all figures must appear in the body of the text where they are first mentioned. Use a single sentence as the caption for each figure, which should appear at the bottom of the figure.Authors’ response: The figures have been placed next to the paragraph where they were first mentioned. The figure caption has been checked and edited.8. Following from (7) above, you may want to combine figures (a) to (i) to form a single figure as is the case with Figure 4.Authors’ response: Figure 2-3 has been checked and ensured consistency with Figure 4.9. I advise downloading Grammarly to assist you with the editing of your paper.Authors’ response: Grammarly has been used.10. There is a need to justify your outcome prioritization. I suggest organizing your technology categories in line with the European Parliament categorization.Authors’ response: 3D printed facial mask has been prioritized in the manuscript.11. Ensure that titles and subtitles of your “Comparison with Prior studies” subsection of the Discussion are the same as the titles and subtitles of your Results section , and as suggested in (30) above.Authors’ response: The discussion section has been reorganized.We would like to express our gratitude once again to the reviewer for detailed thoughts and feedback. We have carefully considered, responded to, and made changes to the manuscript based on the specific recommendations of the reviewers. We feel that the changes have greatly increased the overall quality of work, and we are very appreciative of the kind comments. Thank you. Our responses to the specific comments of the reviewers are listed as follows.I acknowledge that the authors of the paper titled “Supporting Technologies for COVID-19 Prevention: Systemized Review” have don1. Systematic reviews require a predefined robust search strategy that is exhaustive, an appraisal scheme for each type of study  with well-cited tools, a clearly outlined method for synthesizing results, a method of assessing all the evidence emanating from the literature and most especially, with a clearly stated guideline used in reporting the review. Given that this review does not formally appraise the included studies for risk of bias and quality, neither does it have a clearly outlined method of synthesis, It will be appropriate to identify your study either as a (1) literature review, (2) systemized review, (3) narrative review, or simply (4) overview, all of which do not forcefully require a comprehensive search, formal appraisal of studies and typically aimed at a narrative synthesis [1]. It is enough to note here that even “systematic reviews with narrative synthesis” and “rapid reviews” that may omit some aspects of a standard systematic review, follow specific citable guidelines in their methods and synthesis approach, to say the least.Authors' response: The paper title has been changed to “Supporting Technologies for COVID-19 Prevention: Systemized Review.”2. It is absolutely important to bear in mind that reviews have their terminologies, as is the case with randomized controlled trials or other studies. You wrote I quote “In this paper, 150 news articles and scientific reports on COVID-19-related innovations during 2020-2021 were firstly checked, screened and shortlisted to form a pool of candidates yielding a total of 18 publications for review” and yet elsewhere I quote “After the initial candidates were selected, they were subjected to eliminating evaluations”. I do not think the term “candidate” can be used to refer to records retrieved in reviews. You may want to rephrase those and elsewhere (Introduction and Methods sections) in the body of your text and use “records” or “articles” instead.Authors' response: The word “candidate” has been rephrased to “article” throughout the manuscript.3. Your “results” and “conclusions” subsections of the Abstract are not robust in a way that helps the reader understand what you found and what you learned or deduced from the findings and your recommendations. Kindly include a sentence or two each for personal protective equipment, testing methods, medical treatment, and other considerations in the “results” subsection.Authors' response: A summary sentence has been added into each subsection of “results” so that “results” can be seen as more separate from “conclusion.”4. Kindly include this phrase in the “methods” subsection of your Abstract: “The keywords ‘COVID-19 technology,’ ‘COVID-19 invention,’ and ‘COVID-19 equipment’ were used in a Google search to generate related news articles and scientific reports.” Moreover, indicate the date that the search was performed.Authors' response: The sentence has been added into the abstract.5. Regarding your PRISMA diagram, your numbers for records identified from other databases (websites) do not add up. You excluded 15 articles from 30 you sought to retrieve, and it follows that you apparently excluded all 15 articles you assessed for eligibility, but you contradictorily still included the 15 articles in this review. Kindly verify and correct your PRISMA chart.Authors' response: The PRISMA chart has been updated.6. Your PRISMA diagram shows that you searched other websites other than Google, it will be absolutely helpful and more robust to indicate these websites under your “Search strategy.”Authors' response: Another website has been included in the search strategy.7. You did well to have included the PRISMA flow. Kindly substantiate your phrase I quote “The selection of the article followed the guideline of PRISMA 2020” with a suitable reference.Authors' response: Two new references have been added to the manuscript.8. Under “Testing methods” in your Results section, kindly also allude to “pooled” and “rapid testing (serology and antigen)” technologies as these are indispensable innovations to increasing the turnaround time and for timely detection. This updated Cochrane review as well as this list of 42 rapid testing technologies considered to be of acceptable performance by the UK government can help you identify suitable new technologies to add to this review. Regarding their pros and cons, it might be worthwhile to also look at the extent to which information provided by manufacturers is helpful for each technology considered if possible.Authors' response: The section of “testing methods” has been edited, and more references including have been added to Table 2 of the manuscript. Additionally, an additional paragraph has been added to the manuscript.9. Coming to your Study Limitations, your phrase, and I quote “Also, the paper only provides a quantitative comparison between the technologies” does not seem to be coherent with your synthesis approach. I think this should be a qualitative comparison since you made use of textual descriptions to draw similarities and dissimilarities between the data. Tabular presentations facilitate the narrative but do not make it quantitative. Kindly phrase and include the following in your Study Limitations as well;a. The search strategy was not comprehensive as it was limited to one database (Google).b. The fact that the protocol was not registered with PROSPERO might have affected the results in one way or the other.c. Even though you unveiled some of the complexities regarding supporting technologies, a quantitative analysis would have also added value to the review results.d. You did not do a formal appraisal of the included studies and the overall evidence from included studies. This must-have affected your results.10. Your Table 1 through 3 make up 17 articles instead of 18 according to the number of retained articles. Kindly verify.Authors' response: The study limitation has been edited. There are 23 articles in the manuscript.11. Your “Conflicts of Interest” should follow the journal guidelines. Kindly use “None declared.”Authors' response: The statement has been updated.Authors' response: We would like to express our gratitude again to the reviewers for their careful thoughts. We have carefully considered, responded to, and made changes to the manuscript based on the specific recommendations of the reviewers. We are very appreciative of the kind comments. Thank you.Our point-by-point responses to the comments of the reviewers are listed as follows:Unfortunately, I still have the 3 following concerns.1. Recommendation #3: I am happy that the authors of this paper . Except otherwise, kindly leave this box empty and move this number (n=5) to either “Records identified from Databases” or “Records identified from Websites”. My humble suggestion is that since you seem to have identified 200 records from Google search and ScienceDirect, under “Records identified from Databases (n=200)”, kindly specify “Google=150”, and “ScienceDirect=50” for readers to be clear about how many articles were retrieved from which database. Under “Records identified from Websites, kindly put “n=5, assuming that the 5 previously published reviews were identified from websites. If these were identified through Google search, ScienceDirect, or Cochrane, then kindly include under Records identified from Databases and leave “Records identified from Websites empty.Authors' response: The flowchart has been improved according to the suggestions. The five review articles have been identified from Database, so the boxes of “identification of new studies via other methods” as well as “previous studies” has been removed according to the study by Page et al, “PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.” Please kindly see the manuscript.3. You need to correct your statement “Three previous review papers were also included” as this seems to be 5 in the flow diagram.Authors' response: The statement has been corrected.


Methods and Protocols is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed scientific journal that provides a forum to the publication of novel approaches in the fields of Life Sciences, Chemistry, and Biomedical Sciences and their intersection with other related scientific fields such as Physics, Earth Sciences, and Environmental Research. Our principal aim is to provide scientists with a platform to publish new protocols based on established techniques as well as significant improvements and developments of cutting-edge methods. In line with our scientific scope, all articles need to provide background information on underlying principles, full experimental details, and comparison to available protocols.As our readers know, MPs as a respected journal. Along with this, we are lucky to attract an ever-growing stream of high-quality manuscripts. In our latest editorial team meeting, we decided to implement some changes to the kind of manuscripts MPs will consider for publication, and we have updated our editorial section. The highlights of these changes are summarized in the following. We encourage authors to submit full articles as classical research manuscripts, presenting novel information with all required controls and concepts. We encourage submissions of relevant review contributions in the classical sense as well as short comments highlighting active areas of research. In terms of protocols, we are eager to attract classical submissions that describe novel or sufficiently re-defined detailed step-by step descriptions of methodology. The impact of this is broadened by the new category “Technical Reports”, which can be significantly shorter but need to highlight technical novelty and applicability in the designated research area. A new structure is taken on board for contributions dealing with study design and prospective research proposals. We want to continue giving authors the opportunity to present their concepts in our newly established Registered Reports or Study Protocols Section (full details can be found on the new MPs website). The overarching principle should be that manuscripts must present data and data analysis in support of any new concept. A pure study protocol for feasibility studies or scoping reviews will no longer be in the focus of MPs.We just celebrated our first successful official impact factor of 2.4 and we are proud to have established MPs to further grow into the right direction. We are very much looking forward to receiving many more wonderful contributions as methods, protocols, reviews, comments, technical notes, and data-supported study reports.We hope that these changes are well accepted among our authors and contributors. We hold the firm belief this scientific change of direction will increase the high level of quality of our accepted manuscripts and will help


South African Journal of Physiotherapy (SAJP) would be useful. So, what has the team consisting of editors, reviewers, authors, publishers and the South African Society of Physiotherapy (SASP) sponsorship achieved? As always, every achievement is because of teamwork, and the above team has contributed in every way to the increasing success of our journal.I will be stepping down as the Editor-in-Chief of the journal at the end of October 2023 after a fulfilling and eventful period. As such, I felt that a review of the period while I have been Editor-in-Chief of the We have a new cover design that was chosen to reflect the caring hands of physiotherapists as well as our diversity. It is also like the SASP logo that we all appreciate.When I became the Editor-in-Chief, I was advised that we needed to increase the size of our editorial board to comply with international standards of scientific journals and to ensure that we had a better chance of being considered for various indexing services. This was carried out and we now have a board consisting of many South African and international research experts who are interested in supporting and promoting the journal. All board members have a 3-year term after which they are invited to stay for another term. Given that some do not take up the invitation of another term we ensure regular ‘new blood’ on the board.We also needed to increase the number of articles and this we have done and now regularly publish between 30 and 40 articles annually. This has meant an increase in the SASP subsidy, which has been agreed by the SASP and for which we are grateful. It also has meant hard work for the editorial team and the publishers. As such from 2024, there will be two Associate Editors to assist the Editor-in-Chief.The reviewer list has been revamped: all reviewers now have a minimum of a master’s degree and two publications. They are divided into the main specialist areas of physiotherapy so that they review in an area in which they have expertise. We regularly send out invitations for new reviewers. We are currently working on a system to enable reviewers to claim Continuous Professional Development (CPD) points, and this will compensate them in a small way. Without our loyal hard-working reviewers, there would be no journal.We started inviting local physiotherapy experts to write ‘State-of-the-Art’ articles in their field of expertise and have now published a number of these that have been excellent showcases of what their fields contain. I believe that these articles have added to the quality of our journal and showcase what good research academics and clinicians we have.CONSORT STATEMENT, STROBE document, and so on. This has improved the quality of our submissions as all authors can now see what they need to include in their articles. We brought a statistician on board to check the statistics of many of our articles, and this is in line with most journals where articles go through a statistical check prior to being sent out for review.The journal now has compliance check lists that authors must complete when they are submitting their articles. They must state if they had statistical support and then complete appropriate checklists based on the type of article that they are submitting. These check lists are based on the Our international readership and authorship have increased remarkably as has our local authorship as authors now consider the journal as one of the journals they consider when publishing. To be considered as one of the journals when publishing is an indication of how far the journal has come.We were listed on PubMed in about 2019, and this immediately made a difference to our visibility. Since then, we have been listed on SCOPUS and have a Cite Score. The best news is that we are now listed on the Web of Science and have an Impact Factor. Having an Impact Factor means a great deal to researchers in health sciences, and this is a huge gain for the journal. In addition, we have now been listed on SciELO, which is also a feather in our collective caps! All this information is on the journal website.I believe that the SAJP is in a ‘good place’ and I leave feeling satisfied with what we have achieved. It does mean, however, that the hard work must continue. The editors need to work on the journal every week, and we continue to be reliant on the good services provided by our team at AOSIS. The sponsorship of the journal by the SASP is essential as we showcase what our South African profession does. My best wishes to the new editorial team of Prof Witness Mudzi, Editor-in-Chief and the two Associate Editors Dr Annalie Basson and Dr Serela Ramklass.


Psychiatry training programs vary in the degree to which they offer trainees with an opportunity to get involved in research. Exposure to research during the training period is critical, as this is usually when trainees start their own scientific research projects and gain their first experiences in academic publishing.We present the European Journal of Psychiatric Trainees (EJPT) (ejpt.scholasticahq.com), the official journal of the European Federation of Psychiatric Trainees (EFPT), including its scope, mission and vision and practical considerations.Reflecting on the foundation and operation of the European Journal of Psychiatric Trainees.The European Journal of Psychiatric Trainees is an Open Access, double blind peer-reviewed journal which aims to publish original and innovative research as well as clinical, theory, perspective and policy articles, and reviews in the field of psychiatric training, psychiatry and mental health. Its mission is to encourage research on psychiatric training and inspire scientific engagement by psychiatric trainees. Work conducted by psychiatric trainees and studies of training in psychiatry are prioritized. The journal is open to submissions, and while articles from psychiatric trainees are prioritized, submissions within scope from others are also encouraged. The article processing fee is very low and waivable. It is planned to publish two issues yearly.The first article was published in July 2022, titled “Fluoxetine misuse by snorting in a teenager: a case report” and it received 218 views as of 17 October 2022, which confirms the journal’s potential for visibility.The European Journal of Psychiatric Trainees is a non-profit initiative designed to offer psychiatric trainees a platform to publish and gain experience in publishing. Thanks to its robust double blind peer reviewing system, it has the potential to contribute to scientific excellence.None Declared


Advances is rapidly establishing itself as an international, high quality, high impact open access journal in the field of child psychology and psychiatry and related disciplines. We are making excellent progress towards our high ambitions, and what a first year we have had! It is time to celebrate. Since the launch of the first issue in April 2021 we have published over 70 articles including a mix of editorials, editorial perspectives, original articles, reviews and commentaries, with topics ranging from – the impact of school closures during Covid‐19, longitudinal studies on psychiatric referrals, to large population‐based cohort studies. Importantly, the published articles come from 13 countries, from several continents , helping our journal in the path of becoming truly international. I would like to take the opportunity to thank all of our authors, editors, reviewers, readers and the international research community who have supported us during this first year. I am really looking forward to continuing to work together during the coming years!Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (JCPP) Advances today will typically receive a first decision within 60 days. Our aim is that the work published in JCPP Advances will lead to a better understanding of, and better outcomes for, children, adolescents and young adults in our society. We aim to substantially increase the reach and impact of scientific advances. Our first year has been a great success in this regard, with researchers in over 160 countries accessing the journal, and downloads approaching 100,000. I am also pleased to share that every article published in JCPP Advances in 2021 generated wider impact via news articles, blogs and social media, as measured by Altmetric, and several publications have already found policy mentions making a difference in the real world. The most impactful article, as measured by Altmetric, published in JCPP Advances during 2021 showed that the COVID19 pandemic exacerbated mental health problems in already vulnerable children and that these negative outcomes were explained by financial stress which was negatively linked to parental mental health . The most‐read article in JCPP Advances during 2021 used MoBa data to explore the association between maternal acetaminophen use during and risk of ADHD in the child  and we are now preparing applications for PMC in 2022 and MEDLINE in 2023. The journal has adopted many progressive initiatives like ‐ CRediT, mandating ORCiD, requiring data availability statements, offering open science badges and more. JCPP Advances is committed to scholarship that is respectful of diversity. The journal will strive to encourage wider representation on editorial board, editorial advisory board, reviewers and authors.Authors publishing in JCPP Advances.HL reports receiving grants from Shire Pharmaceuticals; personal fees from and serving as a speaker for Shire Pharmaceuticals and Evolan Pharma AB outside the submitted work; and sponsorship for a conference on attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder from Shire Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. He is also the Editor‐in‐Chief of JCPP


Replacing traditional journals with a more modern solution is not a new idea. Here, we propose ways to overcome the social dilemma underlying the decades of inaction. Any solution needs to not only resolve the current problems but also be capable of preventing takeover by corporations: it needs to replace traditional journals with a decentralized, resilient, evolvable network that is interconnected by open standards and open-source norms under the governance of the scholarly community. It needs to replace the monopolies connected to journals with a genuine, functioning and well-regulated market. In this new market, substitutable service providers compete and innovate according to the conditions of the scholarly community, avoiding sustained vendor lock-in. Therefore, a standards body needs to form under the governance of the scholarly community to allow the development of open scholarly infrastructures servicing the entire research workflow. We propose a redirection of money from legacy publishers to the new network by funding bodies broadening their minimal infrastructure requirements at recipient institutions to include modern infrastructure components replacing and complementing journal functionalities. Such updated eligibility criteria by funding agencies would help realign the financial incentives for recipient institutions with public and scholarly interest. Most rereplication crisis. Evidence suggests that the most prestigious journals, the ones that researchers must publish in or perish, are partly responsible for the observed lack of reliability by capitalizing on surprising, too-good-to-be-true results while lacking proper quality controls  encourages Member States and the Commission to invest in and foster interoperable, not-for-profit infrastructures for publishing based on open source software and open standards, in order to avoid the lock-in of services as well as proprietary systems, and to connect these infrastructures to the EOSC' . On the


R. Sco. Open Sci.9, 211799. (Published online 5 January 2022). (doi:10.1098/rsos.211799)https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211799) published in Royal Society Open Science 5 January 2022 would like to issue a correction to the text provided in the statement of research ethics included with that publication. In the published version of the paper, the authors included the following as a statement of research ethics:The authors of ‘Sprinting with prosthetic versus biological legs: insight from experimental data’  approved the protocol. The participating athlete provided informed consent in accordance with the approved protocol prior to testing (Protocol: 18-0456)’.Following inquiries by the journal's editorial office to the authors and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) named above, prompted by reader comment, the authors acknowledge that the statement provided is incorrect.https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/revised-common-rule-regulatory-text/index.html#46.102 and in the attached PDF), it was therefore incorrect to state that the protocol was approved by the IRB.Although informed consent from the study participant was received by the authors, the study did not meet the threshold required by the IRB to be considered ‘research’, and was instead considered a case study. Case studies are not issued an ethical approval  assessed the submitted protocol (Protocol: 18-0456) and determined that it did not meet the definition for research with regard to human subjects. Consequently, no further IRB review nor approval took place or was required prior to the study being conducted. The participating athlete provided informed consent in accordance with best practice’.The authors are grateful for this opportunity to correct the published statement of research ethics.


Commentary: This editorial introduces the reader to the new journal Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics and dispels common myths about open access journals.Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics(FAO), the new open access scholarly journal of the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS). This medical journal covers the surgical and medical management of foot and ankle disorders with a specific focus on reconstructive, trauma, and sports-related conditions utilizing the latest technological advances.Welcome to ) and dispel some myths. An OAJ is a scholarly journal that is available online to the reader “without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.”4 Open access publication began with the formation of the internet in the early 1990s, but was not formalized until a series of meetings (most notably the Budapest Open Access Initiative) occurred in the early 2000s. The popularity of OAJs increased slowly at first, but has experienced exponential growth in the past few years. The Directory of Open Access Journals now listing nearly 10,000 journals. Many federal funding programs currently require open publication of works resulting from their funding and many academic institutions cover the cost of publication for their faculty in open access journals.For those who may not be familiar with open access journals (OAJ), I would like to briefly explain the concept . In essence, the authors pay a fee so that their readers do not have to. Open access allows the information to reach readers who lack an individual or institutional subscription—an all too common barrier for trainees and for practicing physicians in the developing world.FAO was created as a sister journal to Foot & Ankle International (FAI) to meet the needs of AOFAS members, and other orthopedic surgeons, fellows, and residents, for an additional outlet for their scholarly work and as a way to share information worldwide. FAO adheres to the same rigorous peer review standards as its sister publication. FAI and FAO will, at the start, share the same pool of reviewers.Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine (OJSM) as a sister publication to the American Journal of Sports Medicine 3 years ago. The rapid growth of OJSM demonstrates that a subspecialty society can successfully support both traditional print and open online journals.OAJs are not new in orthopaedics. We are fortunate to be able to follow the model established by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) with the launch of the FAO will be published online and will be freely available worldwide via the internet. The online-only publication has a number of advantages, including: more rapid publication, lower cost, and flexibility in content and format. The journal will feature a diverse mix of content, including: original clinical and basic science research, narrative reviews, systematic reviews, metaanalysis, case reports, hot topics, research designs, and technique articles. Additionally, FAO will contain a number of format enhancements, including videos, hypertext links, and scripting, which will make for a dynamic reader experience. Although FAO  is not currently indexed in Medline, it is our goal to become so as soon as possible, and once indexed, all previously published articles will be retroactively included.FAO editorial board, assistant editors, and I are excited to open this new chapter in orthopaedic foot and ankle research. We hope to make this journal the ideal resource for orthopaedic surgeons, fellows, residents, and allied health providers worldwide who seek the latest in evidence-based foot and ankle information. We hope that you will return to this website frequently to see what is new in foot and ankle surgery, to download and share articles, and to contribute your work to this new repository of orthopaedic foot and ankle knowledge that is freely available worldwide.The Editor-in-ChiefL. Daniel Latt, MD, PhD


Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated virus particle vaccine for SARS-CoV-2, BIV1-CovIran: findings from double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase I and II clinical trials among healthy adults” for the BMJ Open [In December 2021, one of the authors of the present paper (AR) took part in the peer review of the paper “BMJ Open . In suppBMJ Open , 5. In tA1. Authors should facilitate research reproducibility to boost peer-review speed and accuracy. This includes 1) sharing codes, calculations, and data (raw and elaborated), and 2) providing a step-by-step description of the ideas that led to the realization of the project, the implementation of the methods, and the procedures to assess the tests’ assumptions.A2. Authors should adopt frameworks for enhancing quality in preclinical data since this can significantly increase transparency and trust in results and allow errors to be prevented rather than detected too late [too late .A3. Regarding clinical trials, authors should publicly share audit/monitoring documents, information about the contract research organization that monitored the study, and data submitted to regulatory agencies .A4. Authors should release a preprint version so as to allow the scientific community to review the results independently and rapidly.J1. Journal editors should evaluate the paper’s health sensitivity and decide whether it is a high-sensitivity topic. All research involving novel drugs, vaccines, and therapeutic strategies should be considered at high sensitivity.J2. For high-sensitivity topics, journals should compulsorily require A1–A4. Any draft version that has passed peer review should be released at the very moment of approval, explicitly indicating that it is an unedited peer-reviewed version. Reviewers’ reports and authors’ responses should always be published, ensuring easy citability . Reviewers’ names and affiliations should also be published unless they express reasonable fears for their safety. This should help reduce the problem of coercive citations [itations . FinallyJ3. For high-sensitivity topics, journal editors should stratify the peer review to ensure the validity of the key elements. Alongside a general assessment, each methodological aspect  should be carefully evaluated by one or more independent specific experts, especially when dealing with high-complexity data or multidisciplinary approaches. Regarding clinical trials, editors should involve expert figures to evaluate pharmacological and public health aspects . Journals should also include a specific mandatory section in which reviewers declare the limitations of their review , so that editors and readers have a clear understanding of what the reviewers assessed. Finally, double-blind review should be required to reduce authorship bias [hip bias .J4. For high-sensitivity topics, journal editors should create a dedicated section made up of two or more journalists experienced in detecting ethical violations. Such supervision should extend to the authors but also the reviewers, who could voluntarily influence the publication process. The inquiry must only concern researchers’ professional relationships and activities, without affecting the private sphere, in order to safeguard their privacy. The academic journal should propose to the reporters to sign a non-disclosure agreement regarding the data found and guarantee the quality of the investigation.J5. For high-sensitivity topics, journals should compulsorily require that the data are suitably standardized to allow decentralized analysis through automated tools, software, or artificial intelligence algorithms [gorithms , 9. SpecJ6. For high-sensitivity topics, journals should pay peer reviewers and editors. Indeed, paying peer reviewers—a sustainable practice, as shown by the editorial policies of various journals—would foster excellence thanks to an economic reward proportional to the reviewer’s skill (competition mechanism). One of the main obstacles to publication, namely, the difficulty in finding available reviewers, would be quickly overcome. Scientists could play this role on a permanent and ongoing basis thanks to the benefits of true job performance. Paid work would increase the actual responsibility of peer reviewers and editors.I1. Tiered indexing should be introduced by abstracting services. The top rank should only be granted to academic journals that meet J1–J6. Indeed, since indexing in recognized databases is a source of prestige , doing so would drive health journals to adjust to the new standards. Moreover, this would help the public to identify the most authoritative and reliable journals. Similar initiatives are already underway [underway .R1. Funders and regulatory agencies should require necessary authors’ compliance with points A1–A3.R2. Regulatory agencies should agree on a unique international data standardization (see point J5) so as to strengthen and accelerate scrutiny by the whole scientific community.R3. Institutions and employers should actively encourage and support scientific refereeing. Moreover, funders should be willing to finance an extra amount to properly perform points J3, J4, and J6.In conclusion, we do ask the scientific community to take a clear position and make itself heard with a stentorian voice to protect public health from ethical misconduct. This renewal would lead not only to direct benefits to the research but also to the public image of the whole scientific world, thanks to a novel, more transparent, efficient, and effective procedure of academic publication. We are aware that these guidelines are tailored to the medical field and that some of our requests could be not applicable or not stringent enough. Therefore, if needed, specific recommendations should be added or lifted based on the research field.


JACMP in late 2022 and early 2023. Elle Thomas, the Medical Physics Managing Editor joined the JACMP also as Managing Editor in October, 2022. She is performing a management supporting role for the JACMP and brings significant knowledge and skills to the JACMP operation. The JACMP and Medical Physics utilize the same publisher and the same manuscript management platform, Wiley and eJournalPress respectively, which mean that a lot of the operational processes are the same for both journals. All members of the Editor‐in‐Chief team are elated that Elle was chosen to work with the JACMP.There were more than a few changes to the JACMP as Deputy Editor‐in‐Chief Emeritus and will voluntarily edit a very limited number of manuscripts, primarily in the category of AAPM Reports and Documents. Per has served the JACMP as Deputy Editor‐in‐Chief since January of 2013 and has performed extraordinary service over the years. We will miss him but also, we are thankful to have him in this continuing role as occasionally the EIC team is faced with difficult decisions. It is helpful to have his wise and seasoned perspective and advice when important decisions are made.A second change is that Per Halvorsen has accepted a position that will greatly limit his continuing as Deputy Editor‐in‐Chief. Per completed his term of service at the end of 2022, but will remain on the JACMP had an opening for a new Deputy Editor‐in‐Chief for the JACMP. After a search limited to those who have demonstrated noteworthy contributions to the JACMP, the consensus choice was that Susan Richardson join the Editor‐in‐Chief team. Susan is a former member of the AAPM EXCOM having served the AAPM as Secretary for 3 years. She is an expert in clinical brachytherapy, medical physics education, and AAPM operations. Additionally, she is a careful and skilled writer, scholar and editor. It is a great pleasure for Tim Solberg and me to welcome Susan to the EIC team.With Per's departure, the JACMP added a number of new Associate Editors in January, 2023. These AEs were identified from the most productive, competent and efficient JACMP reviewers. The EIC team welcomes each of these new AEs to the JACMP Board of Editors.Finally, the JACMP benchmarks. The average number of days from acceptance of an article to publication has decreased from 47 days in 2017 to 34.5 days in 2022 The Impact Factor for the JACMP was 1.118 in 2013, 1.301 in 2018, and 2.243 in 2022. Articles published totaled 329, 349, and 338 in 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively. The 2022 JACMP acceptance percentage was 56%. There were 152.5 days from submission to publication in 2022 compared to 163 days in 2021. There were 12,062, 16,502, and 20,376 registered JACMP users at the end of 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively.We are seeing continued improvement in certain critical JACMP illustrates why the AAPM needs two scholarly journals. However, there is some overlap between the two journals; about 1/3 of the articles published in the JACMP might also have been included in the Medical Physics publication space. For these articles, the venue of publication is mostly the decision of the authors. For those submitted articles that are not a proper fit for the journal selected by the author, Wiley has put in place a streamlined method to transfer articles immediately and seamlessly from one journal to the other. Note that the journal Editorial Boards differ in makeup; JACMP Associate Editors and reviewers tend to be clinical while Medical Physics editors and reviewers are mostly focused toward scientific contributions.The clinical emphasis of the JACMP community to take a few moments and help us by logging in to your profile to complete your areas of expertise. Many thanks for doing this. The instructions are below:Finally, I ask all members of the JACMP—Modify Areas of Expertisehttps://jacmp.msubmit.net/cgi‐bin/main.plexIf you have forgotten your Login Name, it is best to send an email to JACMPEditorial@wiley.comIf you have forgotten your password, click on “Forgot your password?” just above the Login and Reset buttons on the login page.Login—New users will be prompted to fill out affiliation/institution information as well as specifying areas of expertise before the registration process is completed.After logging in the site is separated into several subsections. In the bottom‐most subsection, entitled General Tasks, click on “Modify Profile/Password”Select by clicking on the circle to the left of your answer.This is the modify profile page. Here you are able to amend nearly every aspect of your profile and user settings. Scroll down to the bottom of the modify profile page to until you see “Will you consider being a Reviewer for this journal?”Type key words into the “Search Areas of Expertise” text box.Click on “I,” “M,” “T” to manually search the taxonomy.When you find the area you wish to choose, simply click on the text. The area you clicked on will be transferred to the box on the right (your selected areas).After the reviewer question, you will see two sections for “Areas of Expertise.” The first section you can search by two methods.The second section is used for manually entering keywords you cannot find in the first section. Both sections are used by our database when Associate Editors search for potential reviewers.Please follow these steps below to login, access the profile screen, and modify the profile screen.After the fields are modified click on “Modify Profile / Continue” at the bottom of the page to complete the amendments. This is also a good time to update your institutional information and link your existing ORCID profile. Any questions, concerns, or errors while modifying your profile should be sent to JACMPEditorial@wiley.com.