Rounds Of Peer Review Research Articles

How to get published in Palynology (or any other journal)

There are many published items on guidance in scientific writing, and potential authors should not try to read too many of these to prevent information overload. This article aims to advise aspiring authors on producing scientific manuscripts for publication. It is particularly aimed at early career researchers in palynology and related topics who wish to publish their work in the peer-reviewed literature. It is vitally important that your manuscript makes a good initial impression with the journal editors. This means strictly adhering to the house-style (textual format) of the respective journal, and that your work is well-illustrated, well-structured and well-written. Despite the apparent complexity of the scientific publishing process, the system is primarily designed to allow several expert third parties to critically scrutinise your work in order to ensure scientific excellence. During the production of the first draft, authors are advised to anticipate issues that may be noted by peer reviewers. Consider carefully where to submit your work to. Specifically key metrics such as the impact factor, readership and scope of journals should be assessed. You will need to navigate an online submission process hence it is critical to organise your files effectively before submitting. It is possible, even likely, that you may be asked for more than one round of peer review. Moreover, you may have to recast your work and submit it elsewhere if it is declined by your first choice journal. Ethics in publishing are very important. For example you should invite colleagues to be co-authors only if they have materially contributed to the particular manuscript, and make strenuous efforts not to use the work of others unacknowledged. Remember that many more people will read your title, abstract and keywords than the main body of the paper so pay special attention to crafting these items optimally.

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing.• Type of peer review: Double-blindAuthor’s information were removed from the papers before be forwarded to the reviewers. And the authors only got the comments of papers without reviewers’ information.• Number of submissions received: 230• Number of submissions sent for review: 210• Number of submissions accepted: 120• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): Approximately 52%• Average number of reviews per paper: 6• Total number of reviewers involved: 1268• Any additional info on review process:After basic reviews by editorial assistant, 210 papers were sent for peer reviews, 1268 reviewers involved in the process. and review process for each paper took around 1 month. The decision to accept or reject was based on the suggestions of reviewers. If differences of opinion occurred between reviewers, the editor-in-chief weighed all comments and arrived at a balanced decision based on all comments, or a second round of peer review was initiated.• Contact person for queries:Ms. Jiajia Mo info@icmeie.com

Peer review declaration

All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information:• Type of peer review: Double-blindAuthor’s information were removed from the papers before be forwarded to the reviewers. And the authors only got the comments of papers without reviewers’ information.• Conference submission management system: http://papersub.pmsconf.org/ • Number of submissions received:126• Number of submissions sent for review:118• Number of submissions accepted:68• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): Approximately 57.1%• Average number of reviews per paper:3• Total number of reviewers involved:337• Any additional info on review process:After preview by editorial assistant, 118 papers were sent for peer reviews, 337 reviewers were involved in the process, and review process for each paper took around 1 month. The decision to accept or reject was based on the reviewers’ comments. If differences of opinion occurred between reviewers, the editors weighed all comments and arrived at a balanced decision based on all comments, or a second round of peer review was initiated.• Contact person for queries:Ms. Lily Gong, secretary@pmsconf.org

627 Strategies for Reducing Emergency Department Lengths of Stay for Admitted Pediatric Burn Patients

Abstract Introduction Various strategies to reduce emergency department (ED) lengths of stay (LOS) for admitted pediatric burn patients may be employed as a quality improvement project. Decreasing ED LOS may promote patient outcomes and reduce morbidity. Initial discussions were brought forth during trauma and burn multidisciplinary peer review rounds in March 2019 and have persisted to present day. Methods Several strategies, such as preparation of the burn unit staff within one hour of patient arrival in ED, notification to the burn unit by the burn attending of an incoming pediatric burn patient, allowing the PICU charge nurses or advisors to assist with room set up and admissions, and creating a checklist to assist PICU nurses and advisors in helping prepare for anticipating inpatient admissions. These strategies were designed and enforced in March/April 2019. In addition to these action plans, trauma activation alerts were added in December 2019 to the burn charge nurse phone for pediatric burn trauma one and trauma alerts for more expedient notifications. Finally, communication efforts between ED and burn leadership teams were conducted in June 2020 to help with additional mitigating of ED LOS, such as discussing the appropriateness of specialty consults while in the ED. Results Initial ED LOS was reduced from 209 minutes in March 1019 to 150 minutes in June 2019. Increased trends were noted in early 2020, with a peak at 244 minutes in July 2020. Additional interventions, such as trauma activation alerts and ED/Burn team communications, did not provide sustainable long-term reductions. Conclusions Recent strategies to reduce overall ED LOS trends have been beneficial, but not consistent, in sustaining downward trends. Action to perform a gap analysis to discover persistent barriers and to introduce additional structure, such as a burn trauma one algorithm, may provide stability to this metric.

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing.• Type of peer review: Double-blindAuthor’ s information were removed from the papers before be forwarded to the reviewers. And the authors only got the comments of papers without reviewers’ information.• Conference submission management system: http://papersub.iceeep.org/• Number of submissions received: 419• Number of submissions sent for review: 397• Number of submissions accepted: 221• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): Approximately 52.7%• Average number of reviews per paper: 3• Total number of reviewers involved: 878• Any additional info on review process: After preview by editorial assistant, 397 papers were sent for peer reviews, 878 reviewers were involved in the process, and review process for each paper took around 1 month. The decision to accept or reject was based on the reviewers’ comments. If differences of opinion occurred between reviewers, the editors weighed all comments and arrived at a balanced decision based on all comments, or a second round of peer review was initiated.• Contact person for queries: Ms. Iris Yuan, Wuhan Zhiming Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. (secretary@iceeep.org)

Semantic eSystems: Engineering methods, techniques, and tools

We are delighted to present this novel special issue, which emphasizes semantic eSystems and their engineering methods, techniques, and tools. “eSystems” are those interdisciplinary cost-effective and interconnected solutions that leverage advanced information and communication technologies' techniques and tools to gain competitive advantage. Recent years have witnessed increasing interest in the design and development of various eSystem-based applications, ranging from real-world to machine and robotic applications. An essential feature in eSystems is their intelligent ability to “speak” and interact with one another to support function “extensibility” so that complex interactions could be established with other eSystems. Therefore, connecting disparate eSystems “on the fly” necessitates engineering a dialog channel such that it enables data fusion, exchange, and link in a unified and understandable way. While data emitted from eSystems are of different formats, sizes, and types, adopting semantic data technologies is a natural way to address these differences. Simply put, semantics is about agreeing on a common understanding of data that need to be exchanged between systems and between humans and systems. This special issue received 22 submissions, which were aligned with the theme of semantic eSystems' methods, techniques, and tools. Those submissions came from diverse researchers from academia, industry, and individuals from all over the globe. First, all submissions were screened closely by the editors to check their suitability with the special issue's list of topics. Second, after multiple rounds of peer review, only 11 high-quality submissions were accepted for publication in this special issue. Those accepted papers address the semantic eSystems theme from different perspectives including, for instance, efficient semantic–visual indexing model for large-scale image retrieval in cloud environment, trilateration-based indoor localization engineering technique for visible light communication system, graph-based system to enable efficient transformation of enterprise infrastructures, recognizing physical activities having complex interclass variations using semantic data of smartphone, spatiotemporal-based sentiment analysis on tweets for risk assessment of an event using the deep-learning approach, sentiment-based eSystem using hybridized fuzzy and deep neural network for measuring customer satisfaction, data fusion analysis for emotion recognition with thermal image and Internet of Thing devices, unified framework to manage cybersecurity and safety in manufacturing industry, graph-based convolutional neural network stock price prediction with leading indicators, author classification using transfer learning and predicting stars in coauthor networks, and DNA signal analysis tool: intelligent noise suppression window filter. The authors express their sincere thanks to the Editor-in-Chief for allowing them to organize this special issue. The editorial office staff members are excellent and are thanked for their support. The authors are also thankful to all the contributors who made this special issue possible and to the reviewers for their thoughtful contributions.

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing.• Type of peer review: Double-blindAuthor’ s information were removed from the papers before be forwarded to the reviewers. And the authors only got the comments of papers without reviewers’ information.• Conference submission management system:http://papersub.icnmci.org/• Number of submissions received:45• Number of submissions sent for review:38• Number of submissions accepted:18• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of SubmissionsReceived X 100):Approximately 40%• Average number of reviews per paper:3• Total number of reviewers involved:144• Any additional info on review process:After preview by editorial assistant, 45 papers were sent for peer reviews, 144 reviewers involved in the process, and review process for each paper took around 1 month. The decision to accept or reject was based on the reviewers’ comments. If differences of opinion occurred between reviewers, the editors weighed all comments and arrived at a balanced decision based on all comments, or a second round of peer review was initiated.• Contact person for queries:Ms.Zheng, sec_zheng@icnmci.org

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing.• Type of peer review: Double-blindAuthor’s information were removed from the papers before be forwarded to the reviewers. And the authors only got the comments of papers without reviewers’ information.• Conference submission management system: http://papersub.icmice.org/ • Number of submissions received:41• Number of submissions sent for review:33• Number of submissions accepted:15• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): Approximately 37%• Average number of reviews per paper:3• Total number of reviewers involved:89• Any additional info on review process:After preview by editorial assistant, 33 papers were sent for peer reviews, 89 reviewers involved in the process, and review process for each paper took around 1 month. The decision to accept or reject was based on the reviewers’ comments. If differences of opinion occurred between reviewers, the editors weighed all comments and arrived at a balanced decision based on all comments, or a second round of peer review was initiated.• Contact person for queries:Ms. Yuan, secretary@icmice.org

Sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials and for prediction models.

Two study protocols are published in this issue of Colorectal Disease: FALCON, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of strategies to reduce surgical site infection, and AFAR, a predictive model of atrial fibrillation after colonic resection. Both are exemplars of excellent research design that surgeon researchers should seek to emulate. Trial statisticians were involved at an early stage and the protocols have been through several rounds of peer review by trial methodologists, prior to being funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). In this article we address the important question of sample size calculations and how they should be approached for these very different forms of study.

Guest Editor Introduction: Special Issue on Intimate Partner Stalking

This article introduces a special issue on intimate partner stalking (IPS) focused on the current state of research, practice, and policy on IPS. Articles were solicited for inclusion in this special issue throughout 2018 and underwent multiple rounds of peer review. Nine articles were selected for inclusion in this special issue focusing on innovative research methods and analyses related to IPS and identification of current gaps in research and practice. Practitioner perspectives are also offered across multiple articles. There continues to be a dearth of rigorous research on IPS and this special issue highlights emerging research and recommendations for continued research. Policy and practice implications are discussed throughout with a focus on supporting survivors and holding offenders accountable.

Effect of an editorial intervention to improve the completeness of reporting of randomised trials: a randomised controlled trial

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of an editorial intervention to improve completeness of reporting of reports of randomised trials.DesignRandomised controlled trial (RCT).SettingBMJ Open’s quality improvement programme.Participants24 manuscripts describing RCTs.InterventionsWe used an...

Implementation of peer-review quality rounds for gynecologic brachytherapy in a high-volume academic center

PurposeWhile peer review is critical for quality and safety in radiotherapy, there are neither formal guidelines nor format examples for brachytherapy (BT) peer review. We report on a gynecologic BT peer-review method implemented at a high-volume academic center. Methods and MaterialsWe analyzed discussions at bimonthly gynecologic BT peer-review rounds between July and December 2018. Rounds consisted of 2–5 attending physicians with gynecologic BT expertise, 1–2 BT physicists, and trainees. Peer-review targets included clinical case review, contours, implant technique, dose/fractionation, and target/organ-at-risk (OAR) dosimetry. The projected/final target and OAR dosimetry were analyzed. Results55 separate implants from 44 patients were reviewed. Implants were mostly reviewed after the first BT fraction (n = 16, 29%) or at another time point during BT (n = 20, 36%). One (2%) implant was presented prospectively. The applicator type and BT technique were reviewed for all implants. Dose/fractionation was evaluated for 46 implants (84%); contours were discussed for 21 (38%). Target and OAR dosimetry were reviewed for 54 (98%) and 28 implants (51%), respectively. Six cases (11%) underwent minor changes to the applicator type to improve target and/or OAR dosimetry. One case (2%) had a major change recommended to the dose/fractionation. ConclusionsGynecologic BT peer review may enhance BT quality by allowing for implant optimization and formal review of challenging cases, ultimately improving medical decision-making and team communication. Peer review should be implemented in centers offering gynecologic BT.

Editorial: The Big Picture

I am frequently asked by potential authors and incoming LRTS Editorial Board members about the timeframe for submitting a paper and the publication timeframe for accepted papers. My response is that it depends. A paper may require significant revision, which is not necessarily an indication of the paper’s quality. Papers may need to undergo a second round of peer review. Some papers are published within six months of submission, and others might be published a year after submission. There are so many variables that a straightforward answer is not possible.

Editors' Message

It is our great pleasure to welcome you to this issue of the Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction, on the contributions of the research community Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW). This issue contains a carefully selected set of papers, accepted through our review process from among the 658 world-wide articles submitted by the Spring 2019 deadline. After the first round of peer review, 325 (49.4%) papers were invited to the Revise and Resubmit phase. After receiving the revised submissions, the external reviewers and the program committee reviewed all second round contributions. Finally, the program committee came together for a three-day online editorial committee meeting, held to allow for collective deliberation. Ultimately, 205 papers (31.2%) were accepted.

Assessment of variables that influence agreement between reviewers for Foot & Ankle International

IntroductionA common criticism of the peer-review process is the often disparate nature of reviewer recommendations when a decision is rendered which belies the supposed uniformity of the process. The purpose of this investigation was to examine level of agreement between reviewers for Foot & Ankle International (FAI) and analyze variables which may have influenced agreement in order to better understand the peer-review process. MethodsApproval to conduct this investigation was obtained from the Executive Board and Editor in Chief of FAI. All manuscripts submitted to FAI during the calendar year 2016 which underwent formal peer-review were included in the analysis. For each reviewed manuscript, demographic data was collected regarding specific reviewer and manuscript characteristics in a de-identified manner. Results442 manuscripts underwent formal blinded peer-review by two independent reviewers during the study period. Only 199 manuscripts (45%) had a decision rendered in which both reviewers agreed on the same initial recommendation. There were no differences in demographic characteristics between the group of reviewers who agreed as compared to those who disagreed on the initial round of peer review. A similar number of indexed peer-reviewed publications between reviewers correlated with increased levels of agreement. ConclusionsDuring the study period, there was 45% initial agreement between reviewers for FAI when assessing the same manuscript. Aside from research productivity, no other reviewer-specific variables examined in this investigation were found to correlate with agreement. Specific recommendations and changes may be considered to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the peer-review process.

The language of peer review reports on articles published in the BMJ, 2014\u20132017: an observational study

To analyse the words and expressions used in peer reviews of manuscripts that were later published as original research in the BMJ. Secondary aims were to estimate the differences in net sentiment between peer review reports on manuscripts subject to one or more rounds of peer review and and review reports on initially rejected manuscripts that were accepted after appeal. This observational study included all peer review reports published in the BMJ from September 2014 until the end of 2017. The study analysed the frequency of specific words in peer review reports for accepted manuscripts, identifying the most commonly occurring positive and negative words and their context, as well as the most common expressions. It also quantified differences in net sentiment in peer review reports between manuscripts accepted after appeal and manuscript accepted without appeal. The dataset consisting of 1716 peer review reports contained 908,932 word tokens. Among the most frequent positive words were “well”, “important”, “clear”, “while the negative words included “risk”, “bias”, and “confounding”. The areas where the reviewer makes the most positive and negative comments included: “well-written paper”, “well-written manuscript”, “this is an important topic”, “answers an important question”, “high risk of bias” and “selection bias”. The sentiment analysis revealed that manuscripts accepted after appeal had lower scores on review reports for joy and positive sentiment, in addition to having higher scores for negative words expressing sadness, fear, disgust and anger compared with manuscripts that were not initially rejected. Peer review comments were mainly related to methodology rather than the actual results. Peer review reports on initially rejected manuscripts were more negative and more often included expressions related to a high risk of bias.

Improving the Quality of Patient Data Capture in Breast Radiotherapy Peer-Review

The importance of multidisciplinary peer-review rounds is widely recognized. Peer-review rounds ensure the quality and safety of individual radiation therapy (RT) treatment plans. At our institution, breast cancer RT peer-review rounds are conducted weekly over 1-hour session, with attendance from radiation oncology, therapy, physics staff and trainees. All newly diagnosed breast cancer patients undergoing radical RT are scheduled for peer-review approximately 1 week prior to their treatment start date. One challenge in conducting peer-review for a large disease site is the ability to systematically review all patients within the limited time constraints. Our objective is to develop a comprehensive patient list with essential patient, tumour, and treatment factors for peer-review and to evaluate its feasibility. A standardized list of patient information essential for peer-review were identified by the site group. The core patient clinicopathologic parameters were entered into the RT Electronic Medical Record (RT-EMR) by the clinician at the time of radiotherapy prescription. Patient information included: age, clinical/pathological stage, surgery type, chemotherapy sequence, tumour size, histology, tumour grade, lympho-vascular invasion, margin status, nodal positivity, ER, PR, and HER2 status, and a comment section. Aside from tumour size, margins, nodal status and comments, all data inputs used dropdown menus, which ensured data consistency and reduced free-text entries. Standard RT prescription selections were templated in accordance with our institutional practice guidelines to facilitate uniformity. All patient parameters extracted from the RT-EMR were transferred to a spreadsheet and evaluated for completeness by a Clinical Specialist Radiation Therapist (CSRT) prior to rounds. For patients with insufficient data for peer-review, missing data were retrieved manually and entered by the CSRT through review of dictated clinic notes. The rate of completion and time required to retrieve missing information were captured following the implementation of the automated data extraction process. RT-EMR data were collected over 40 weeks between April 2015-April 2016. The average patient data completion during the first month of implementation was 64% (SD10) and increased significantly over time to 86% (SD4) in the final month (p<0.001). The time required to ensure data completion was inversely correlated with the overall data completion rate (Pearson r=-0.702;p<0.001). An average of 18 (SD4) patients were peer-reviewed weekly in rounds. The standardization of RT prescription selection and clinicopathologic data streamlined the peer-review process in rounds and significantly decreased preparatory time; mean reduction from 2hr:40mins (first month) to 1hr:15mins in the final month (p=0.005). The standardization and consistent entry of patient’s clinical-pathology data decreased time required for review of transcribed notes for missing patient information. The use of a comprehensive peer-review list is feasible and supports peer-review of all radical breast RT plans, even in the absence of the attending radiation oncologist. Direct entry of patient information at the time of RT decision-making enhances efficiency and allows prospective data capture, reduction of human resources, and avoidance of manually reviewing transcribed clinical notes.

Progress Towards a Person-Centered Model of Care for Radiation Therapy

Our institution is developing a workflow to partner patients with a primary Radiation Therapist (RT) who performs all key procedures (e.g. simulation, planning, delivery, etc) over their radiotherapy course. Proof-of-concept was previously demonstrated in a small clinical pilot, suggesting improved continuity of care and patient satisfaction. The aim of this project was to determine clinical feasibility and stakeholder satisfaction in expanding this person-centered model of care over several treatment units and disease sites. Using a ‘plan-do-study-act’ framework, this quality improvement initiative was piloted on four treatment linacs with 16 RTs, focusing on new patients with breast, upper gastrointestinal and head and neck cancers. Patients were triaged to this model based on disease site, technique complexity or an assumed need for additional supportive care – then partnered with a ‘primary’ RT at their first department visit. This RT aimed to perform the following point-of-care activities for their patients (schedule permitting): all education sessions (including new pre-simulation sessions and a 2-week post-treatment follow-up call), CT-simulation, dosimetry review, peer-review rounds and treatment delivery (at minimum, first and last fractions). For feasibility assessment, RT activities were recorded to assess continuity of care and procedure completion. Surveys were distributed to patients treated in this model or with standard practice, and the multi-disciplinary team to assess stakeholder satisfaction. Between February and July of 2018, 245 patients (31% breast, 23% upper gastrointestinal, 46% head and neck) were partnered with a primary RT. Primary RTs performed 69% of the intended points of care for their patients on average, versus standard practice where 40% are performed by any given RT consistently. Overall >95% of patients were satisfied with their experience, with comments highlighting the high quality of education received and importance of staff consistency with minimal hand-offs. Primary RTs (n=14) perceived an improvement in team cohesion, with burnout levels similar to staff working in the standard practice model (n=60). Multi-disciplinary stakeholders (n=47) perceived a positive impact on patient support with the new model, identifying resource requirements and workflow logistics as potential implementation barriers. An unresolved issue is identifying an optimal staffing model that would facilitate primary RTs to consistently perform these procedures, within existing operational demands. A person-centered model of care in radiotherapy was successfully expanded and found to be broadly valid across three disease sites by improving patient care quality and continuity by RTs. Although perceived by staff to be logistically challenging, enabling RTs to utilize their full scope of practice in this model could introduce operational flexibility and remove barriers to implementation. Initial training is underway for RTs in the person-centered model as a move towards full scale implementation in our large comprehensive cancer centre.

A descriptive analysis of the characteristics and the peer review process of systematic review protocols published in an open peer review journal from 2012 to 2017

BackgroundAn a priori design is essential to reduce the risk of bias in systematic reviews (SRs). To this end, authors can register their SR with PROSPERO, and/or publish a SR protocol in an academic journal. The latter has the advantage that the manuscript for the SR protocol is usually peer-reviewed. However, since authors ought not to begin/continue the SR before their protocol has been accepted for publication, it is crucial that SR protocols are processed in a timely manner.Our main aim was to descriptively analyse the peer review process of SR protocols published in ‘BMC Systematic Reviews’ from 2012 to 2017.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed for all SR protocols published in ‘BMC Systematic Reviews’ between 2012 and 2017, except for protocols for overviews, scoping reviews or realist reviews. Data were extracted from the SR protocols and Open Peer Review reports. For each round of peer review, two researchers judged the extent of revision (minor/major) based on the reviewer reports. Their content was further investigated by two researchers in a random 10%-sample using PRISMA-P as a guideline. All data were analysed descriptively.ResultsWe identified 544 eligible protocols published in ‘BMC Systematic Reviews’ between 2012 and 2017. Of those, 485 (89.2%) also registered the SR in PROSPERO, the majority (87.4%) before first submission of the manuscript for the SR protocol (median 49 days). The absolute number of published SR protocols increased from 2012 to 2017 (21 vs 145 protocols), as did the median processing time (61 vs 142 days from submission to acceptance) and the proportion of protocols requiring a major revision after first peer review (19.1% vs 52.4%). Reviewer comments most frequently addressed the PRISMA-P item ‘Eligibility criteria’. Overall, 76.0% of the reviewer comments suggested more transparency.ConclusionsThe number of published SR protocols increased over the years, but so did the processing time. In 2017, it took several months from submission to acceptance, which is critical from an author’s perspective. New models of peer review such as post publication peer review for SR protocols should be investigated. This could probably be realized with PROSPERO.

Expert-Based Consensus on the Principles of Pavlik Harness Management of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip.

UpdateThis article was updated on August 14, 2020, because of a previous error. On page 1, in the byline, the text that had read “S.P. Kelley, MBChB, PhD, FRCS(Tr&Orth), M.M. Feeney, BSc, MSc, BMBS, C.L. Maddock, BSc, MMASc, M.L. Murnaghan, MD, MEd, FRCS, and C.S. Bradley, BScPT, MSc, on behalf of the International Hip Dysplasia Institute (IHDI) Study Group*” now reads “S.P. Kelley, MBChB, PhD, FRCS(Tr&Orth), M.M. Feeney, BSc, MSc, BMBS, C.L. Maddock, BSc, MMASc, M.L. Murnaghan, MD, MEd, FRCS, C.S. Bradley, BScPT, MSc, and the International Hip Dysplasia Institute (IHDI) Study Group*”.An erratum has been published: JBJS Open Access. 2020;5(3):e18.00054ER.Background:Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is the most common orthopaedic disorder in newborns. While the Pavlik harness is one of the most frequently used treatments for DDH, there is immense variability in treatment parameters reported in the literature and in clinical practice, leading to difficulties in standardizing teaching and comparing outcomes. In the absence of definitive quantitative evidence for the optimal Pavlik harness management strategy for DDH, we addressed this problem by obtaining international expert-based consensus on the subject.Methods:An initial list of items relevant to Pavlik harness treatment was derived by a review of the literature. Delphi methodology was used to guide serial rounds of surveying and obtaining feedback from content matter experts from the International Hip Dysplasia Institute (IHDI), which continued in the same manner until consensus based on standard statistical analysis was reached. This was followed by a corroboration of face validity to derive the final set of management principles.Results:Four rounds of structured surveying were required to reach consensus. Following 2 rounds of peer review, and from an initial list of 66 items in 8 categories, we were able to derive 2 simplified, yet comprehensive, print-friendly tables consisting of 28 items in 8 categories to assist clinicians in managing DDH with a Pavlik harness. The tables contain principles of treatment initiation, application and follow-up of the harness, complications, weaning, and end-of-treatment decision-making as well as specific criteria based on the severity of the DDH. Furthermore, highly contentious items were identified as important areas of future study.Conclusions:We developed a comprehensive set of principles based on expert consensus to assist clinicians in the management of DDH using the Pavlik harness. This study also generated a list of the most controversial areas in the nonoperative management of DDH, which should be considered high priority for future study to further refine and optimize outcomes.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.