Policies and Guidelines
- Philosophy of Journal of Shock and Hemodynamics
- Who Can Submit?
- General Submission Rules
- Peer Review Policy
Philosophy of Journal of Shock and Hemodynamics
For more information, please see Journal of Shock and Hemodynamics Aims and Scope page.
Who Can Submit?
Anyone may submit an original article to be considered for publication in Journal of Shock and Hemodynamics provided he or she owns the copyright to the work being submitted or is authorized by the copyright owner or owners to submit the article. Authors are the initial owners of the copyrights to their works (an exception in the non-academic world to this might exist if the authors have, as a condition of employment, agreed to transfer copyright to their employer).
General Submission Rules
Submitted articles cannot have been previously published, nor be forthcoming in an archival journal or book (print or electronic). Please note: "publication" in a working-paper series does not constitute prior publication. In addition, by submitting material to Journal of Shock and Hemodynamics, the author is stipulating that the material is not currently under review at another journal (electronic or print) and that he or she will not submit the material to another journal (electronic or print) until the completion of the editorial decision process at Journal of Shock and Hemodynamics. If you have concerns about the submission terms for Journal of Shock and Hemodynamics, please contact the editors.
Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Shock and Hemodynamics (JoSH) adheres to the guidelines and best practices that are published by professional organizations, including Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (PDF) from ICMJE and Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, WAME, and OASPA). The Peer Review policy adheres to the recommendations outlined in the Council of Science Editors’ White Paper on Publication Ethics.
All manuscript submissions must be received electronically and are initially reviewed for novelty, compliance, and alignment with the scope of the Journal. Submissions that do not adhere to ethical principles or are beyond the scope of the JoSH will be returned without external review. All submissions, including invited articles, undergo peer review and acceptance is not guaranteed.
JoSH uses peer-review for all articles except Houston Shock Symposium Proceeding Papers and any editorials. For these articles, an editorial board member and/or the Editor-in-Chief may provide a review of the document. If accepted, the article will be copyedited by the editorial office. Such manuscripts are NOT marked as “peer reviewed.” However, these manuscripts present opinions and information that are of value.
For all other submissions, a double-blind review process is utilized. The reviewers’ identities are not revealed to the authors. To the fullest extent possible, reviewers are blinded to authors’ names, institutions, and countries of origin, to ensure fair and unbiased reviews. Each manuscript (after being initially screened by the Journal’s staff) will be sent to at least two independent reviewers. The independent reviewers must have expertise that matches the manuscript topic. Reviewers’ comments are collected via the website or through a Review Form and sent to the Editor-in-Chief or a member of the editorial board for a final decision. An article may be rejected, accepted or revised. The decision is relayed to the authors alongside anonymized reviewer comments. The final decision on publication lies solely with the Editor-in-Chief.
If a revision is requested, authors must submit both a revised manuscript and a response to reviewers. Both documents are then forwarded to the original reviewers whenever possible. If only administrative revisions were requested, the revised manuscript will be processed by the editorial office. We know that reviewing a manuscript can be time-consuming, and we appreciate those who agree to serve as reviewers. No compensation or other incentive is offered to reviewers in order to encourage objectivity.