The Editorial & Peer Review Process
We use an open, non-blinded, peer-review process to select high quality manuscripts for publication in The British Student Doctor. This means that there is no need to remove authorship and affiliation details from your manuscript, and reviewer comments for your submission will be returned to you with the name and affiliation of the peer-reviewers.
The full editorial process, from submission to final decision, is outlined in our peer review process flow chart:
Criteria for judging a submission's suitability for publication in The British Student Doctor:
1) Originality (based on the previous literature in the area)
2) Methodological Rigour (if applicable)
3) Importance (to the readership of The British Student Doctor, as well as to the medical & research community)
Peer reviewers for all submissions will be asked to complete a standard template review form which will cover the above outlined criteria. Ethical and legal issues will also be considered.
Once articles have been accepted for publication, the final articles will be reviewed by the Faculty Advisory Board prior to publication. If the Board believes that there is a reason not to accept the submission for publication, the article will either be rejected or the author may be asked to revise their submission. If the Board accepts the article, then it will proceed to publication in The British Student Doctor. The accepted article may not necessarily be published in the subsequent issue of the journal, but in a later edition if the Editor(s)-in-Chief deem it more suitable or if the manuscript is not publication-ready within the required timeframes. Once publication has been scheduled, the author will be notified by email.
Once the decision has been made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and editorial team that a submission is not of sufficient quality / suitability / relevance / importance / rigour / originality for publication in the journal, the following process should be followed:
The article should be marked in OJS (our online journal platform) as rejected, and the submission should then be archived.
The author(s) of the submission should be immediately notified of the decision via email. This message should be polite, and explain the reasons why the editorial team have decided not to publish their article. The feedback must be constructive, and if the editorial team feel that a future revision of the article (after major revision) may be suitable for publication, then this should be stated and explained in the email. The feedback from any external peer-reviewers should be included, without alteration. The identities and affiliation of peer reviewers should be included in this email, as per the journal’s peer review policy. Finally, the email should encourage authors to submit future work to the journal.
We do not have an appeal process for submissions rejected from publication in The British Student Doctor; the decision of the editorial board is final. We will accept post-rejection responses from authors, and these should be read and acknowledged, but will not impact on the editorial decision. Authors should be informed that whilst there is not an appeal process, they are free to resubmit future revisions of their work to the journal, and these resubmissions will be considered afresh, within reason.