Member Login
Search

Evidence-Based Practice Peer Review Policy

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review enhances the clarity, rigor, and clinical relevance of manuscripts submitted to Evidence-Based Practice. Reviewers provide expert evaluation and confidential recommendations to editors. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly integrity, relevance to primary care, and adherence to the journal’s standards. 

Editorial and Peer Review Process

Evidence-Based Practice uses a double-blind peer review model for manuscripts undergoing external review. Author identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. All submissions undergo initial editorial assessment by qualified editors to evaluate relevance, clarity, strength of evidence, and contribution to clinical practice. Based on this assessment, manuscripts may be declined, returned for revision, or advanced for further editorial evaluation and/or external peer review.


Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by funding sources, institutional affiliations, or external interests. The Editor in Chief makes final decisions based on editorial assessment, peer review, and ethical considerations.

Article-Type Specific Review Approach

External Peer Review Required: 

  • Original Research Articles, including all Quality Improvement (QI) manuscripts (minimum of two reviewers)
  • Priority Updates to the Research Literature (PURLs)
  • Clinical Inquiries (CIs)

Internal and/or External Review: 

The following article types undergo internal review and may also undergo external peer review to provide additional expertise, independent perspective, and validation of evidence interpretation as part of the editorial process: 

  • HelpDesk Answers (HDAs)
  • Good Evidence Matters (GEMs)
  • Diving for PURLs
  • Editorials

Individuals with expertise in family medicine and evidence-based medicine conduct external peer review. Reviewers are selected based on subject matter expertise, demonstrated proficiency in critical appraisal, and alignment with the journal's standards. Multiple reviewers may be assigned when additional expertise or confirmation is warranted to ensure a comprehensive evaluation. External peer review is routinely incorporated for manuscripts where additional validation or expertise is beneficial to the editorial decision.

Editorial Review

All manuscripts undergo structured editorial review by Deputy Editors and senior editorial leadership. This includes the evaluation of clinical accuracy, strength, and the interpretation of evidence, as well as clarity and applicability to primary care practice. 

Reviewer Selection and Contributions

Reviewers include primary care faculty, FPIN editors, and experienced authors with demonstrated expertise in evidence-based medicine.
To support timely, high-quality reviews, the journal uses a combination of volunteer and compensated expert reviewers. All reviewers are held to the same standards of rigor, independence, and ethical conduct.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Evaluate clinical accuracy, clarity, and relevance
  • Assess the interpretation and application of evidence
  • Identify unsupported or potentially misleading conclusions
  • Provide constructive, professional feedback
  • Report ethical concerns
  • Maintain confidentiality and avoid any actions that could compromise the integrity of the peer review process, including inappropriate use of manuscript content or manipulation of the review process

Confidentiality

All manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers may not copy, retain, share, or discuss manuscript content. All materials must be deleted after the review is complete. 

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose all potential conflicts of interest to maintain transparency. When conflicts are identified, alternate reviewers or editors are assigned to ensure impartiality and uphold the integrity of the review process. 

Editorial Oversight

The Editor in Chief makes editorial decisions with support from Deputy Editors and senior editorial leadership, who oversee manuscript evaluation, integration of peer review, and maintenance of editorial standards. 

Quality Assurance

The journal maintains high editorial standards through structured review processes, ongoing reviewer training, and periodic evaluation of editorial decisions. 

Turnaround Time

The journal aims to provide timely editorial decisions. Typical review timelines range from 2–8 weeks, depending on the level of review required. 

Fees

Evidence-Based Practice does not charge submission or publication fees. All manuscripts are evaluated solely on scholarly merit. 

Ethical Screening and Integrity Checks

  • All manuscripts undergo plagiarism detection and integrity screening.
  • Submissions must be original and not previously published or under consideration elsewhere. Redundant or duplicate publication is not permitted.
  • The journal monitors for potential manipulation of the peer review process or submission system.
  • Quality Improvement (QI) manuscripts must document IRB review or exemption and demonstrate compliance with applicable human subject protections.

Publication Ethics and Author Responsibilities

Evidence-Based Practice adheres to the principles and standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and ethical conduct in scholarly publishing.


Authorship and Originality
Authorship must meet the ICMJE criteria. All listed authors must have made substantial contributions to the conception, development, and revision of the manuscript and must approve the final version. Submitted manuscripts must represent original work that has not been previously published and is not under consideration elsewhere. Authors are responsible for ensuring appropriate citation of all sources and for avoiding plagiarism, redundant publication, and inappropriate reuse of previously published material.


Plagiarism and Misconduct
All submissions undergo plagiarism detection and editorial review. Suspected plagiarism is managed in accordance with COPE guidelines, including the COPE flowchart for plagiarism in submitted manuscripts. The journal defines misconduct to include, but is not limited to, plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, duplicate publication, and misrepresentation of source material.


In cases where concerns arise regarding the originality of a manuscript, including potential use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in a manner inconsistent with journal standards, authors may be asked to provide clarification, revise the manuscript, and formally attest to the originality and integrity of their work. AI-assisted tools may not replace the author's responsibility for original thought, analysis, and interpretation.


All allegations of misconduct are reviewed by editorial leadership and may result in rejection, correction, or retraction, depending on severity and findings. In cases of serious misconduct, the journal may notify the authors’ affiliated institutions or take additional actions as appropriate.


Conflicts of Interest and Funding Disclosure
Authors are required to disclose all relevant financial and non-financial conflicts of interest. All sources of funding or support must be clearly identified. These disclosures are considered part of the editorial decision-making process.

Human Subjects and Ethical Considerations
For Quality Improvement (QI) manuscripts, authors must document Institutional Review Board (IRB) review or exemption and demonstrate compliance with applicable human subject protections. For all manuscripts, authors must ensure that no identifiable patient information is included without appropriate consent and that all referenced studies were conducted in accordance with accepted ethical standards.

Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Actions
The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. When errors are identified, corrections (errata) may be issued at the discretion of the Editor in Chief. Retractions may be issued in cases of significant error, misconduct, or when findings are no longer reliable. Expressions of concern may be published when an investigation is ongoing. All actions are guided by COPE recommendations.

Appeals Process
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written request outlining the basis for the appeal. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor in Chief and/or designated editorial leadership, and decisions on appeals are final.

Data Transparency
Given the nature of evidence-based review articles, data availability is not typically applicable. However, when manuscripts include original data or analyses, authors are expected to provide appropriate data availability statements and ensure transparency in reporting. When applicable, data should be made available or clearly described to support reproducibility and verification of findings.

Questions? Please email us at [email protected] or call us at (573) 256-2066.