How long should a review take?
Reviewers are given a month to file their reviews, and AEs and the editor each try to turn their respective reports around within a week. If you do not receive a response within two months, send a note to JMR@ama.org and ask about the status of your article.
How can I ask the editor or the associate editor a question?
You can ask a question of the editor at any time. E-mail is the appropriate method to contact the editor: joel.huber@duke.edu. If you have a question for an AE, send it to JMR@ama.org, and it will be forwarded to the AE. The AE will respond through the same channel to preserve anonymity.
What strategies should an author use in listing preferred or nonpreferred AEs and reviewers?
Select people whom you admire and who you feel will provide valuable feedback. If you believe that a particular reviewer would not provide a fair review, you should indicate that in a letter to the editor. Acknowledge readers who have helped with the paper using a footnote on the title page. Do not list likely reviewers or AEs with whom you have a conflict of interest as preferred or nonpreferred reviewers, but rather note such relationships in your letter to the editor.
What defines a conflict of interest between an author and a reviewer or an AE?
A reviewer or an AE has a conflict of interest with an author if he or she is or has been active in joint research or teach at the same university. The time limit for these criteria is four years. Thus, past authors with a joint publication less than four years old are considered to have a conflict. In addition, serving as a senior thesis advisor or having strong family, personal, or business relationships may represent a conflict of interest that has no time limit. In those cases, it is important to indicate the relationship to the editor.
Should a reviewer agree to do a review if there is a known conflict of interest?
If a reviewer feels uncomfortable reviewing the work of a coauthor or colleague, it is appropriate to decline from reviewing. If personal discomfort is not an issue, the reviewer should indicate the nature of the conflict in a private communication to the editor. Some of the best reviews are by people who know each other’s work.
Why are authors and reviewers double blind?
There are two advantages to the double-blind system. First, reviewers are more likely to positively evaluate articles from well-known authors, so it helps limit such bias. Second, authors and reviewers might find their roles reversed in the future. An author submitting a paper today could be serving as a reviewer tomorrow, and those responsibilities might include evaluating individuals who have previously commented on his or her work. The field is small enough that reviewers might reward those who have been favorable to their work and punish those who have been unfavorable. Both responses seriously compromise the integrity of review process.
How should I respond to a person who asks whether I was a reviewer on a paper?
Indicate politely that it is inappropriate for you to answer that question.
Should I try to figure out who the reviewers are to help craft my responses?
It is natural to try to identify the source of a review. My experience is that people are relatively poor at identifying reviewers, and misattributions often generate more harm than good. Thus, instead of trying to identify reviewers, focus on understanding the logical basis for their criticisms.
I received the decision letter and reviewers' comments for my paper, but not all the reviewers contributed comments. Why is that?
Reviewers decline to review for any number of reasons, usually stemming from time constraints of a personal or professional nature. Authors should not interpret this as a reflection of any negative reaction to a paper.