Information for Reviewers
Both practicing optometrists and optometry educators are encouraged to participate in the peer review process for the journal by becoming reviewers. If you are interested in reviewing articles for Interprofessional Optometry, please contact the editor at email@example.com.
Interprofessional Optometry uses a rigorous peer evaluation process for all submissions which are subject to peer review (Original Research, Case-Based Learning, Review Articles, Cross Cultural Issues in Care). Upon submission, each article is reviewed by the editor for relevance and quality (including methodological quality, potential ethical issues and quality of writing). After this initial review, the article is assigned to at least two peer reviewers.
In order to encourage both objectivity and collegiality in the peer review process, the following procedures are used by IO:
- The initial peer review process is double-blind (neither authors nor assigned reviewers are aware of the others’ identities). Reviewers who recognize the work/identity of authors of an assigned manuscript must report this knowledge to the editor, and a substitute reviewer may be found (if possible, given the expertise required to conduct the review; if an alternate is not found, the author will be informed of the non-blind nature of the review).
- When the editor reaches a final decision regarding a manuscript – to either accept it for publication or to reject it – the author will be informed of the identity of the reviewers (but will not be informed as to the source of individual review comments), and the reviewers will be informed of the author’s identity.
- For articles that are selected for publication, the reviewers of that manuscript will have the option to have their names published alongside the article as recognition of their contributions (this is not required, especially in cases where a reviewer may disagree with a final publication decision).
Reviewers are assigned on the basis of expertise and familiarity with the content of the submission in question. However, though some submissions will include several different professions, it is not practical to require review of the submission by a professional from each discipline represented. In these cases, reviewers will be selected on the basis of their expertise of the subject/methodology at hand, regardless of their professional affiliation. If it is deemed absolutely necessary due to questions related a specific profession, the editor may seek input from additional reviewers. Reviewers independently supply the editor with a recommendation to accept, require revisions of, or reject the submission. Final publication decisions will be determined by the editor.
For submissions not requiring peer review (Book/EBP Resource Reviews, From the Field: Student Experiences and Editorial/Commentary), the editor will review the submission for relevance and quality and make a publication decision.
If necessary due to the complexity or unfamiliarity of content, the editor may solicit external reviews for these submissions. If an external reviewer is used, the procedure for peer review detailed above will be followed.