Guidelines for Journal reviewing
Clicks: 342
ID: 110602
2003
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Improving Quality
0.0
/100
Combines engagement data with AI-assessed academic quality
Reader Engagement
Star Article
74.5
/100
339 views
274 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
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.
Abstract Quality Issue:
This abstract appears to be incomplete or contains metadata (108 words).
Try re-searching for a better abstract.
| 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
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.