Guidelines for Journal reviewing

Clicks: 410
ID: 110602
2003
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Star

Ranked #1 of 7 articles by views in health promotion journal of australia

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
All peer‐reviewed journals are absolutely dependent on the quality of the reviews of submitted manuscripts by volunteer reviewers. While editors make an initial assessment of the relevance to readers of a manuscript as well as ensure general writing standards are met, it is the independent reviewers who give detailed feedback about the content, methodology, conclusions and significance to health promotion. Reviewers also give advice to the editors on whether a manuscript should be accepted for publication, revised, or rejected (in their view). Editors then make a decision about the fate of a manuscript and this decision is often, but not always, consistent with the recommendation of reviewers.
Reference Key
rissel2003healthguidelines Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Adrian E. Bauman,Chris Rissel;Adrian E. Bauman;Chris Rissel;
Journal health promotion journal of australia
Year 2003
DOI
10.1071/he03079b
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.