Information and Instructions for IMpact Editors

Dear Editor: 

Your invitation to review a manuscript submitted to IMpact will be sent via email.  A delay in your decision to review an article will slow down the entire review process.  The editorial staff will need to know within 3 business days whether or do not you agree to review the article.  Upon acceptance, reviews should take no longer than 2 to 3 weeks.  If you are unable to complete the review within this timeframe, please notify Ms. Jennifer Newcomb, the Managing Editor, at jnewcomb@health.usf.edu.

Checklist

• Summarize the article in a short paragraph. 
• Give your main impressions of the article (abstract, poster, review or scientific article, book chapter, and any other manuscript submitted), including whether it is novel and interesting, has a sufficient impact, and adds to the knowledge base. 
• Give specific comments and suggestions, including its layout and format, title, and the content, whether it is an abstract, poster, presentation, review article, book chapter or scientific article. Please make sure each aspect of the article is reviewed and pay particular attention to the proper use of language and references.  
• If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, confidentially contact the editorial staff. 

Confidentiality

All documents and papers received should be treated in a confidential manner. They are not to be shared or discussed with others.  If you need to do so, please contact the editorial staff. 

Suggested review process for any article submitted

Evaluation of the manuscript may vary depending on whether or not it is a case report, abstract, poster, review or scientific article, chapter, or other scientific manuscript according to the following:  

• Originality – is the manuscript sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the knowledge in the field? Is the subject or research important?  Suggested review process cont. 
• Structure – Is the manuscript clearly presented? Are all the key elements present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results and conclusions?  
• Does the title clearly describe the manuscript?  
• Does the abstract reflect the content of the manuscript?  
• Does the introduction clearly summarize relevant research and state the problem being investigated?  
• Are the methods explained accurately and in detail? Is the design suitable for answering the research question?  
• Are the results laid out in a logical order? Are the statistics used appropriately?  
• Do the results support the authors’ conclusions? Is there explanation of how this research moves the field forward?  
• Are the figures/tables relevant and describe the data accurately? Is the style consistent?  
• Previous research – Does the manuscript reference supporting research appropriately? Are there important references omitted?  
• Are the references appropriate for the statements they are meant to support?  Are they up-to-date or is more recent information available? 
• Is the journal that the authors have selected to submit the manuscript appropriate? 

Comments to the authors

All comments to the authors should be stated in a constructive and helpful way.  The reviewer should discuss both the shortcomings and strengths of the work.  Please include specific critiques of the study design, methods, data analysis, results and discussion and/or suggestions and questions that will clarify and improve the manuscript for the reader.  Significant omissions should be identified.  Comments on English/grammar are appreciated, however,   do not spend time correcting the language.  Again, remember that comments to the authors should be constructive and point out ways to improve the manuscript.  If you believe there are fatal flaws in the study design or analysis, point these out and ask the author to address them.  Then, place your conclusions concerning these problems in the confidential comments to IMpact’s editorial staff.   

Confidential comments to IMpact’s Editor-in-Chief

Summarize your reasons for your scores and recommendations.  Provide specific comments regarding the originality and importance of the work.  Manuscripts appropriate for submission to mainstream indexed journals should report results of well-designed, performed and analyzed studies that contribute significant new information to the field.  Manuscripts that are premature, are a small part of a larger work, or have serious faults should be communicated.    

Return of your review

All reviews should be completed within 2 to 3 weeks and returned via email attachment to Ms. Jennifer Newcomb, Managing Editor.  Please return both the Manuscript Review Form sent to you upon your acceptance to review and the manuscript, with any corrections and/or comments made using track changes in Microsoft Word.