The Assistant Dean for Community Partnerships and two Doctor of Nursing Practice students from the Medical College of Georgia wait in an exam room in Cusco, Peru preparing to perform gynecological exams.

Peer Review Process


This page describes the peer review process and timeframe followed by CES4Health.info.


Products and accompanying applications that are submitted to CES4Health.info are first reviewed by a member of the editorial team to ensure it fits the types of products that we review. If it is determined to be a fit, it is assigned to one community and two academic reviewers who fulfill reviewer expectations and have relevant areas of expertise. Reviewers assess both submitted products and the accompanying application. Providing information in the application about the work or project that led to the development of the submitted product, as well as about the product itself, provides reviewers additional information on which to base decisions. Reviewers use the following assessment criteria.


Review Criteria

The review criteria used by CES4Health.info were developed for the Community Engaged Scholarship Review, Promotion and Tenure Package (Jordan, 2007) and were adapted from Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate (Glassick, Huber & Maeroff, 1997) to more closely align with common definitions of community-engaged scholarship.


Jordan C (Editor). Community-Engaged Scholarship Review, Promotion &Tenure Package. Peer Review Workgroup, Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, 2007.


Glassick C, Huber M and Maeroff G, Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1997.


  1. Clear goals - the degree to which the authors state the purpose of the product, its intended audience/users and clear goals and objectives.
  2. Adequate preparation - the degree to which the authors appropriately reference or build upon prior work in the area.
  3. Methodological rigor - the degree to which the authors justify the appropriateness of methods chosen with respect to the goals, questions and context of the work, as well as the degree to which authors effectively incorporate community and academic/institutional expertise in the development of the product or the project that resulted in the product.
  4. Significance - the degree to which the work adds to existing knowledge and benefits communities.
  5. Effective presentation - the clarity of the presentation style, the accuracy of the product content, and the appropriateness of language and visual aides for diverse audiences (avoiding jargon and unexplained acronyms, for example).
  6. Reflective critique - the degree to which authors provide critical reflection about the work, informed by both academic/institutional and community feedback. Authors are strongly encouraged to provide evaluation data to support the stated significance of the work.
  7. Ethical behavior - the degree to which authors provide evidence for a collaborative approach characterized by mutual respect, shared work, and shared credit (and approval by an institutional review board and/or community-based review mechanism, if applicable).

Reviewer Comments

Depending on the type of product, reviewers may make suggestions for improvement to either the application, the product, or both. In some cases, the product is in final form and cannot be changed. For example, in the case of a documentary that cannot be easily revised, authors would not be expected to "re-shoot" it. Reviewers may, however, make suggestions for changes to the documentary's product application that could improve its clarity, accuracy, or effectiveness as a tool for providing context. Authors of products in formats that are amenable to change, such as documents and websites, may receive suggestions for improvements to the product as well as the application.


Reviewers are asked to indicate whether they recommend that the product should be accepted as is, accepted if revisions are made to the product and/or application, or rejected. When there is disagreement among reviewers, the decision about publication is made by the Editor.


Timeframe

Reviewers are given four weeks to complete their reviews once they accept a review assignment. Authors will be informed of the publication decision within approximately 12-14 weeks from time of submission. Regardless of the publication decision, authors receive a summary of reviewer comments.


If you have submitted a product for review, please do not inquire about its status until eight weeks after submission.


Questions

If you have any questions about the CES4Health.info review process or timeline, please consult the Frequently Asked Questions. If questions remain, please email us at info@CES4Health.info.