This journal uses a double-anonymous model of peer review. Neither author nor reviewers know the identity of each other.
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine's aim is to become the premiere journal for innovative, high-impact, evidence-based research in prehospital and disaster medicine. As a result, it must be highly selective; only a fraction of submitted manuscripts will be accepted for publication. Most submissions are declined without being sent out for peer review.
This journal uses a double-anonymous model of peer review. Neither the author nor reviewers know the identity of each other.
Manuscripts submitted are first reviewed by Editorial Staff for proper format and possible plagiarism. Section Editors and the Editor-in-Chief may return manuscripts that are written on topics that are not within the scope of PDM. Manuscripts with political bias or that are critical in an unfounded manner are returned to the Author.
Expert review of manuscripts is one of the means of selecting manuscripts for publication in PDM. Manuscripts are also selected for timeliness of the research topic, quality of study design, validity of scientific methods, and uniqueness of the research. Manuscripts that are submitted without adherence to the proper format and style described in the PDM "Instructions for Contributors" cannot be selected for publication (available on the PDM website and at the time of manuscript submission).
PDM adheres to the international publishing standards of the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Peer review is the objective assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts without connection to the research under review or preparation of the manuscript. Peer review of manuscripts submitted to PDM is done in a blinded manner, in which the reviewers and authors are unknown to each other. Reviewers who may have a conflict of interest with review of a manuscript must withdraw from the review. Including other factors, blinded reviews are used by PDM Editors to determine the priority for publishing each manuscript in the Journal. Because PDM receives more submissions than there are pages available for publication of manuscripts received, only a fraction of manuscripts submitted to the Journal can be selected for publication.
The PDM peer review process occurs in two stages.
Submissions to PDM undergo an initial editorial review using a standardized checklist. Submissions that are acceptable for full peer review are then sent for review by a format/methods reviewer and two content expert reviewers. Manuscripts are ranked for adherence to recommended format guidelines, validity of study methods, importance of topic for a global readership, balance in interpretation of findings, and likelihood of the work adding to the knowledge base and potential for citation by researchers in further research.
Following an initial editorial review, manuscripts in the categories of Original Research, Systematic Review, Research Report, and Field Report that are acceptable for full review are peer-reviewed using a double-blind peer review model in which the identities of both the peer reviewers and the authors are kept hidden from each other. Article Commentary and Guest Editorial submissions are reviewed by members of the Editorial Board. It is submitted for final review to at least one (usually two or more) content reviewers who are experts in the field of the research topic.
Acceptance of the manuscript for publication is contingent upon completion of the editing process. This includes copy editing and a final review by the editor-in-chief, who may ask for more information or additional revisions, or even reverse a previous “accept” decision.