Information for authors and editorial policies

Challenges and opportunities of electronic publishing

Peer Review and the PJOHNS: Principles, Problems, and Promise

Information for Contributors

Invited commentary

Attrition rates in integrated vascular and cardiothoracic surgery residency and fellowship programs

Shhhhhh … AHPs can improve charge capture and reimbursement for evaluation and management services even in the global service package

Information for authors

This issue marks the APA (American Psychological Association) era of Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly ( JMCQ ). At the same time, I am pleased to announce that JMCQ is the first communication journal published by SAGE to become a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The AEJMC Publications Committee had approved all AEJMC flagship journals to become member of COPE. But JMCQ is the first one to implement all the standards and carry the COPE logo on its cover. Our COPE membership means that we comply with the highest ethical standards set on the academic refereed journal review process as in other fields of research. I will use this essay to highlight some of the COPE standards and our journal's practices, focusing on those that would be of interest to our readers, authors, and reviewers.Reviewer EthicsReviewing is a privilege and a service to the scholarly community. As COPE states, Peer review in all its forms plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically (Hames, 2013). Some of the important principles of reviewing ethics stated in COPE are that peer reviewers should1. Only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner2. Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal3. Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person's or organization's advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others4. Declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest5. Not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations6. Be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments7. Acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner8. Provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise9. Recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct. (Hames, 2013, p. 1)Before accepting the review invitations from our journal, our reviewers are requested to read the COPE reviewer guidelines and agree to the standards.Fairness in Handling SubmissionsOur journal is committed to fair treatment of all submissions as part of the editorial code of conduct of COPE, which means that editorial decisions are not determined by origins of the submissions such as race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or gender of the authors, but by their appropriateness for the journal.Authors whose writings need help are strongly recommended to hire professional editing service or seek help from proficient English writers to edit their work, prior to submission. A well-written manuscript is much easier to follow for our busy reviewers. It lets them focus on the substance of the manuscript, rather than trying to second-guess what the author means. In fact, both Riffe's (2006) and Neuman, Davidson, Joo, Park, and Williams's (2008) studies of reviewers found that poor writing of the manuscripts is a common concern of reviewers. Yet, good writing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for acceptance. Originality of research ideas with evidence and significant contribution to the field of journalism and mass communication are the two main criteria of acceptance we tell our reviewers to focus on, in giving us publication recommendation. …

The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal (AOTJ) is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), an organisation that supports editors, editorial boards, and publishers to ensure a culture of ethical practices. In accordance, the publication arrangements and policies of the journal must be ethically sound and transparent. It is particularly important that AOTJ, a society journal working with both Occupational Therapy Australia and the publisher Wiley, establish governance practices that are clear and transparent. The editorials within this volume of AOTJ have spoken to quality and research integrity, and it is time to take an inward view. The introduction of a publicly advertised expression of interest for board membership in late 2019 was a first step in creating transparent processes. A new structure was created within the editorial board: the Associate Editors continue to assist the Editor-in-Chief with the management of submitted manuscripts; and the Editorial Board Members (EBM) provide support for initiatives and reviews. The role of EBM supports new members to learn the business of the journal, including governance and publishing ethics, prior to their entry into role of Associate Editor and manuscript management. All members of the editorial board now have terms of appointment to support a regular turnover of members while ensuring continuity of knowledge and succession planning. The members of the editorial board are volunteers for Occupational Therapy Australia, and we are building a system of governance while recognising the importance of editorial independence. We are introducing an induction process for all new members to clearly outline journal policies and processes, code of conduct expectations, confidentiality statements, etc. The induction process includes a conflict of interest declaration and the board is examining how to manage conflicts of interest within meetings, management of manuscripts, and publishing. An upcoming, independently facilitated session will further develop our understanding of conflicts of interest in the context of a journal editorial board. As incoming Editor-in-Chief, I gave due consideration to perceived or actual conflicts of interest and implemented the following approaches early in 2020. Firstly, I consider that I have a conflict of interest during editorial and review processes for other occupational therapy journals. I have therefore made myself unavailable for the duration of my term with AOTJ. Secondly, I have identified a perceived conflict of interest for manuscripts submitted to the journal with a current colleague or collaborator as an author. It is now editorial policy to allocate these manuscripts to an Associate Editor for management, removing the potential for any perceived influence, and ensuring confidence in the rigorous review process and final editorial decision. The more difficult issue, for all members of the editorial board and myself as Editor-in-Chief, relates to publication within the journal. As leaders in the profession, the editorial board have collaborators and research students who wish to publish in their professional association journal. COPE advice that there are examples of when an editor may publish in their own journal but that every effort must be made to minimise bias (COPE, 2005). This advice has been applied across all members of the editorial board with the following processes. Any manuscript submitted by a member of the editorial board is managed by the Editor-in-Chief and the manuscript is reviewed by experts external to the board. Any manuscript submitted with the Editor-in-Chief listed as a co-author is automatically allocated by the publishing assistant at Wiley to an Associate Editor. The Editor-in-Chief has no access to the manuscript during any stage of the review process or the editorial decision. Finally, we are introducing a policy that any manuscript authored by members of the editorial board will include a conflict of interest statement that clearly outlines their association with the journal and how this conflict was managed during the review process. To be clear, the pursuit of ethical practices in publishing have always been a focus of the AOTJ Editorial Board. This year, with the support of Occupational Therapy Australia and Wiley, we are formalising existing policies and processes and enhancing governance practices. The AOTJ has a strong commitment to ethical and transparent practices that maintain the highest standards in publication ethics.

E. Stanley Crawford, MD 1922–1992

Invited commentary

Peer Review: The Best of the Blemished?

General Surgery Programs Afford Trainees Bound for Vascular Surgery Fellowships Increased Vascular Case Experience

Vascular Surgery in Australia and New Zealand (Australasia)

Information for authors