Reviewing papers for Australian Journal of Rural Health: The benefits and the mechanics

Narelle Campbell, Evelien Spelten, Oliver K. Burmeister

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The Australian Journal of Rural Health (AJRH) is ranked as a Quartile 2 journal by Scopus, meaning that aside from being well ranked, it receives many submissions from all over the world and particularly from within Australia. To manage the many submissions, the journal relies on good-quality reviews from volunteer reviewers. It is important therefore for people who have agreed to review for the journal to understand review requirements and processes. The editors of this journal and others have previously published on the basics of the review process,1-3 the importance of the considered approach to the journal output,4 ascribing authorship 5 and the authoring process.6 This editorial seeks to build on these prior discussions both to improve the ways reviews are done and, in particular,to improve the reviewer capacity. Better reviews mean better articles and more citations to this journal, but fundamentally facilitate publication of higher quality research and scholarly discourse in rural health. As such, this editorial also seeks to‘give back’ and support our volunteer reviewers whose contributions to this journal are highly valued and appreciated.1
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)324-326
Number of pages3
JournalAustralian Journal of Rural Health
Volume28
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 28 Aug 2020

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Reviewing papers for Australian Journal of Rural Health: The benefits and the mechanics'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this