Reviewing papers for Australian Journal of Rural Health—The benefits and the mechanics

Narelle Campbell, Evelien Spelten, Oliver K. Burmeister

    Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

    1 Citation (Scopus)

    Abstract

    The Australian Journal of Rural Health (AJRH) is ranked as a Quartile 2 journal by Scopus, meaning that aside from being well ranked, it receives many submissions from all over the world and particularly from within Australia. To manage the many submissions, the journal relies on good‐quality reviews from volunteer reviewers. It is important therefore for people who have agreed to review for the journal to understand review requirements and processes. The editors of this journal and others have previously published on the basics of the review process,1-3 the importance of the considered approach to the journal output,4 ascribing authorship5 and the authoring process.6 This editorial seeks to build on these prior discussions both to improve the ways reviews are done and, in particular, to improve the reviewer capacity. Better reviews mean better articles and more citations to this journal, but fundamentally facilitate publication of higher quality research and scholarly discourse in rural health. As such, this editorial also seeks to ‘give back’ and support our volunteer reviewers whose contributions to this journal are highly valued and appreciated.1
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)324-326
    Number of pages3
    JournalAustralian Journal of Rural Health
    Volume28
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Aug 2020

    Keywords

    • editorial
    • short communication
    • Australian Journal of Rural Health (AJRH)
    • Quartile 2 journals
    • mechanics of reviewing

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Reviewing papers for Australian Journal of Rural Health—The benefits and the mechanics'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this