Abstract
Many journals such as the AJRH face a common problem: they receive more submissions than they can publish and the editors must make hard decisions about what is published and what is returned to the authors or in common parlance rejected. A number of standards apply which are set out in the instructions for authors. Many of the principles are understood by professional academics but submissions are increasingly received from clinicians and students who may be less familiar with the publication process.
The key principles are well known. Is the research technically competent? Are the findings valid and are they reliable in the normal sense of the word. Do the authors measure what they intend to measure and can we rely on their findings as a guide to understanding, policy and action? For instance, is patient satisfaction a valid measure of quality of care and are the findings likely to apply beyond the small population that was studied.
The key principles are well known. Is the research technically competent? Are the findings valid and are they reliable in the normal sense of the word. Do the authors measure what they intend to measure and can we rely on their findings as a guide to understanding, policy and action? For instance, is patient satisfaction a valid measure of quality of care and are the findings likely to apply beyond the small population that was studied.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 2-2 |
| Number of pages | 1 |
| Journal | The Australian journal of rural health |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Feb 2016 |
| Externally published | Yes |
