Evolving editorial processes at the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation.

Abstract

Recent years have seen a rapid growth in the number and variety, of manuscript submissions to the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. The submissions received and processed by the Journal’s editorial team and evaluated by its peer reviewers have nearly doubled in just the past 7 years, and the article submissions reflect a growing international perspective and diversity in disciplines, topics, and regional clinical and policy issues [1]. One consequence of this success is the increasing time and resources needed to manage the journal’s peer review process and to carefully prioritize manuscripts for publication within a broadening range of expert areas. Another issue is the growing number of accumulated manuscripts awaiting print publication. These are good problems to have, as they reflect a maturing field of science [2], a growing number of trained practitioners and researchers [3], and an increasing number of publishable reports. Nevertheless, the higher volume of incoming manuscript submissions require changes to the current editorial process, and this was discussed at a gathering of certain Journal Editorial Board members at the Work Disability Prevention and Integration (WDPI) Conference, held in Toronto in October 2014. After this meeting and after consultation with a number of authors, reviewers, and Editorial Board members, I have identified several changes in the editorial review process that will be instituted over the next year: • Drs. Patricia A. Findley and William S. Shaw, who have been managing many aspects of the ‘‘Editorial Manager’’ (i.e. electronic submission system) website electronic communication and peer review process, will be promoted to Senior Associate Editors, and their decision-making role will continue to expand in consultation with me as Editor-in-Chief. • Some of the current Associate Editors will end their tenure in that position, and a group of new Associate Editors will be designated to serve as action editors, overseeing and managing the editorial review process within specific methodological and/or content area domains and making final recommendations for manuscript revisions and acceptance. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Senior Associate Editors, who will be responsible for final decisions. I will continue to be responsible for the overall quality and direction of the manuscript review and publication process. • For those manuscripts that are advanced to peer review, the Editorial team will strive to obtain at least two independent reviews for each manuscript before an editor decision is reached. • In addition to writing specific critiques and comments, peer reviewers will be asked to complete four formal ratings of overall manuscript impact, as shown below.