All articles submitted to American Health & Drug Benefits (the Journal) are first reviewed internally by staff editors for the relevance and appropriateness of the topic and the manuscript. Articles that are found appropriate to the scope of the Journal and are properly presented are assigned 2 or 3 peer reviewers, by the editors, according to the expertise needed and the professional and scientific expertise of the reviewers. The majority of articles are assigned 2 reviewers; articles that require specific expertise beyond the medical field, such as a statistician, are assigned 3 reviewers.
The editors select reviewers from the Journal’s editorial board members based on their respective expertise and from a pool of external peer-review experts who have requested to serve as reviewers for the Journal, as well as other healthcare experts in specific fields. The review is voluntary and does not carry any honoraria.
In cases of controversy or strong disagreement regarding the merits of the work among the reviewers, an additional review is solicited, or one of the Journal’s editorial board members is requested to provide additional evaluation. More than 3 reviewers are only used if reviewers from several fields are needed.
Instructions to Reviewers
Reviewers are asked to follow these directives:
- Follow the Journal’s review guidelines, requesting the reviewers to provide written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner by focusing on the scholarly merits and the scientific and practical value of the work to the readers of the Journal, and document the basis for their opinions.
- Indicate whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant, and rate the work’s originality and relevance to the scope of the Journal.
- Provide fair, constructive, and informative critique of the work, which may include supplementary material provided to the journal by the author or request supplementary material that will be posted online if the article is accepted; avoid personal or insulting comments; and maintain the confidentiality of the review process.
- Complete the review within 2 to 3 weeks and inform the editor immediately if they are unable to meet the deadline and suggest potential reviewers instead.
- Inform the editor if they have a potential conflict of interest with the content of the article, in which case they will be excused from the review of the particular article.
- Inform the editor if their expertise is insufficient to provide an adequate assessment; reviewers are not expected to have an expertise of every aspect of the article, but must have sufficient expertise to recommend acceptance or rejection of a manuscript.
- Ensure the methods are detailed clearly and adequately, and ensure that all relevant references are cited in the article or suggest missing references to be included.
- Determine the scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicate ways to improve it; and recommend the final acceptance or rejection of the article based on the Journal’s criteria of scientific accuracy, relevance of content, appropriate and complete presentation of the information, timeliness of the work, and contribution to the medical literature.
The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of an article is done by the editors based entirely on the recommendations of the peer reviewers and the final assessment of the editors regarding the value of the article to the Journal’s readers and the overall contribution to the medical literature. Articles that are rejected are deleted from the Journal’s records and all signed forms, including copyright and disclosure forms, are voided.