Overview of the Review Process
EMR uses a double-blind peer review process on manuscripts to ensure both rigor and expediency.
- Number of reviewers: most often three
- Reviewer’s comments to authors: yes
- Fees charged to review manuscript: no
- Percentage of non-referred articles: none
The Editor-in-Chief at EMR makes a decision about whether the manuscript fits within the guidelines of EMR, constitutes original research, and warrants a full, peer review. If the decision is negative, then the Editor-in-Chief will reject the submission and the author will be contacted by email of this decision.
If the Editor-in-Chief’s initial review decision is positive, then a full, double-blind review will be conducted. The Editor-in-Chief will send the manuscript to an Associate Editor who is responsible for identifying reviewers. The EMR policy is to acquire three reviews however this number can be less at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers normally have 28 days to complete their review. The Associate Editor then makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. If the changes are required, the full review cycle will be repeated.
Once the Associate Editor and Editor-in-Chief are satisfied with the changes requested, the manuscript will be accepted. Only very rarely will a manuscript be accepted without any revision.
Revise and Resubmit
If changes are required before being accepted to EMR, the author is expected to revise and resubmit the manuscript in order to be considered for acceptance. The manuscript will be sent back to the original reviewers as part of a second round of reviews. EMR anticipates usually two cycles will be the norm although in rare cases a third review may be possible. The author will receive the reviewer’s comments as well as the Associate Editor’s recommendation.
The manuscript may be rejected after the full review or the second round of full review. While naturally a disappointment, EMR hopes that the authors will appreciate the importance of a rigorous review process to ensure both scholarly rigor and practitioner relevance.