title: Peer review at the Health Information and Libraries Journal.
abstract: At its best, peer review can mean receiving constructive feedback to help you make the most of your writing. At the Health Information and Libraries Journal, we strive to make the peer review a positive process for both authors and referees. We adopt a process of double-blind peer review. To receive two reviews in a timely manner, three referees are initially invited for each article submitted. The referees are asked to submit their review noting errors, areas of ambiguity or clarification required before the editor and editorial team consider the manuscript ready for publication. As with most journals, it's unlikely that your writing will be accepted in its original form; a typical outcome will be for a recommendation for major or minor revisions. This is good! It means the editorial team has seen something of likely interest to their readership and wants to help you develop it to a publishable standard. There can be a surprising amount of development and change in a manuscript from original submission through to publication. While you may be experienced in your field, you may not have much experience of writing for publication. As a referee, you get an intriguing insight into the shape of manuscripts in their original form.
authors.affiliation: m.j.grant@salford.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Maria J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Grant
mesh_terms: D035081:Editorial Policies; D006801:Humans; D007254:Information Science; D007990:Libraries; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000379:methods*; D011643:Publishing
keywords: evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP); library and information science; library and information sector; peer reviewing; writing