.jpg)
Editorial Policies
Scope of papers published in BJOG
We welcome submissions of papers on all subjects relating to women's health. We give priority to papers containing original data, systematic reviews and commentaries suggesting innovative approaches to women's health problems.
Duplicate/redundant submission or publication
A manuscript is considered on the understanding that it has been submitted exclusively to BJOG, the data presented have not been published elsewhere and that no additional submission will be made elsewhere unless the paper is rejected. If there is any overlap with a previous publication this should be disclosed on the electronic submission form in AllenTrack in the Dual Publication section. If the work has been previously submitted in abstract form at a conference, this should be detailed here. Even if you are unsure whether a planned dissemination constitutes publication, please include the details here.
Consent for the manuscript to be submited to BJOG should be gained by the corresponding author from all coauthors. This avoids two authors submitting the same paper to different journals without each others knowledge. Not gaining consent from each author for submission to BJOG could lead to inadvertant misconduct in the form of duplicate submission.
Case reports
We do not publish case reports unless they highlight important innovations with wide applicability, or previously unpublished complications of new techniques or medications. Please note that we reject 98% of case reports submitted.
Has the manuscript been previously submitted to another journal?
If the manuscript has been submitted previously to another journal, it is helpful to submit the previous editor's and reviewers' comments as part of your submission, along with the authors' responses to those comments. BJOG encourages authors to submit these previous communications.
Similar manuscripts
If you have recently submitted or published (within two years) another paper on the same subject or subjects, please let us know, and if possible, attach a copy, explaining how your current submission is different. All similar papers must be referred to and referenced in the new paper.
Letters to the Editor
In most cases, Letters to the Editor refer to articles published in BJOG no more than eight weeks previously. A right of reply will be extended to the original authors at the discretion of the Editor in Chief (EIC).
Authorship criteria
Authorship is a way of making explicit both credit and responsibility for the contents of published articles.
Please note that to qualify for authorship an individual should meet these criteria: (a) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (b) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (c) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions (a), (b), and (c). Contributors who do not qualify for authorship should be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are required to confirm during the submission process that all individuals that qualified for authorship have been included (to prevent ghost authorship) and that all those included qualify for authorship (to prevent gift/guest authorship).
Contributorship
BJOG considers ghost writing of manuscripts to be dishonest and unacceptable. Therefore, medical writers who do not qualify for authorship must be included in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section and their roles and affiliations should be described in full.
Order of Authorship
The authors themselves should decide the order in which authors are listed in an article. Many different criteria are used to decide order of authorship. Among these are relative contributions to the work and, in situations where all authors have contributed equally, alphabetical or random order. Readers cannot know, and should not assume, the meaning of order of authorship unless the approach to assigning order has been described by the authors. Authors may want to include in the ‘Contribution to authorship’ section, a description of how order was decided.
Image Manipulation Policy
No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed or introduced. Adjustments of brightness, contrast or colour balance are acceptable if they are applied to the whole image and as long as they do not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information present in the original.
The grouping of images from different parts of the same gel, or from different gels, fields, or exposures must be made explicit by the arrangement of the figure (e.g. dividing lines) and in the text of the figure legend.
If the original data cannot be produced by an author when asked to provide it, the acceptance of the manuscript may be revoked.
No ethics committee or IRB available locally
If a paper has been submitted from a country where there is no ethics committee, institutional review board, or similar review and approval, authors should explanation how the study adhered to the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Editors will use their own experience to judge whether a paper should be published, and if deemed necessary by the Editors, cases will be submitted to either the BJOG ethics committee or the COPE (Committee on Publications Ethics). If the decision is made to publish a paper in these circumstances a short statement will be included in the manuscript to explain the situation.
Authors may wish to include statements to confirm that trials conformed to Good Clinical Practice (for example, US Food and Drug Administration Good Clinical Practice in FDA-Regulated Clinical Trials; or, UK Medicines Research Council Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice in Clinical Trials).
Peer review
BJOG articles are subject to peer review to ensure the scientific quality and importance of research published by BJOG. The Scientific Editor usually obtains reviews from two external referees. The Editor may use one referee for a manuscript, particularly where a reviewer has failed to provided a review that was promised, proving it difficult to obtain a second review within a reasonable time frame. In addition to peer review, at least two additional Scientific Editors will have consulted on any manuscript which is accepted for publication. Where referees are split, a paper will only be accepted on a majority decision of at least five opinions, including the referees. The Editor in Chief, either alone or in consultation with the other Scientific Editors, may reject a manuscript without peer review for reasons such as lack of relevance or scientific originality or for poor design or execution. Final decisions lie with the Scientific Editors. Commentaries submitted without invitation should be refereed in the standard way, as described above. Invited commentaries and editorials, should be reviewed formally by two additional Editors, as well as being edited by the commissioning Editor. A mini-commentary or journal club article should be reviewed by a consult involving at least two Editors in addition to the commissioning editor.
N.B. Letters are not peer reviewed (they are edited by the EIC)
Referees
Referees are encouraged to provide their identity by adding their name to the ‘Additional Remarks for the Author’ box in the online peer review form. Unless referees add their name to this box they will remain anonymous.
We request that BJOG referees do not include unprofessional, derogatory or potentially libellous comments. Although text added to the ‘comments to editor’ box are considered confidential, disclosure may be required in rare circumstances.
Embargo policy
BJOG papers are embargoed until the day of online publication. If press enquires are received or if authors inform press contacts of their study the author/press office are required to inform the journalist of the strict embargo date, which is the day of online publication. The BJOG press team will contact some authors about their studies to prepare press releases which are circulated with the strict embargo date clearly marked. Authors can find out the date their paper will be published online by contacting the Production Manager, Lorna Faith: lorna.faith@wiley.com
Clinical trial registration- protocols
Relying on published trials alone can provide a biased view of effectiveness and safety when assessing medical interventions. Therefore, all trials should be deposited in a Clinical Trials Registry such as:
• http://www.anzctr.org.au
• http://www.clinicaltrials.gov
• http://isrctn.org
• http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/index.asp
• http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr
BJOG no longer publish protocols. If you are commencing a trial and wish to alert BJOG readers for the purpose of patient recruitment, your trial may be signposted in the BJOG International Column. To have your trial considered for inclusion in the column please contact Shona Kirtley with the trial registration number and link to the protocol online: bjog@rcog.org.uk
Change in authorship
If the list of authors needs to be amended after submission, an explanation should be provided in addition to email permission from all authors including the author that is to be added/removed, please send to Dave Atha: bjog@editorialoffice.co.uk
Disclosure of interests
Not only authors are required to supply their disclosure of interests (explained in full in the instructions to authors) but all Editors and Editorial Board members supply their potential conflicts of interest to the BJOG Managing Editor. These are updated every two years.
The disclosure of interests section should includes shares, employment, reimbursement for attending a meeting, fees for speaking, and funds for a member of staff, research consulting and organizing education.
Original data
If the editors thinks that it is necessary to view the raw data described in a paper, the authors will be expected to provide these data on request (with details of patients removed).
Complaints procedure
A mechanism for appealing against a decision taken by the editors is built into the online system. If a manuscript is rejected an option to Appeal Manuscript appears on the author's Home Page, from which the author can write to the Editor in Chief explaining the reasons for disagreeing with the decision. The Editor in Chief may uphold the decision, or may request further information or consult again on the manuscript prior to making a decision regarding whether to reject or uphold the appeal. Other complaints should be addressed in writing to the Editor in Chief for consideration and any necessary action. Where a complaint remains unresolved, the complainant can refer the matter to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Potential misconduct
BJOG takes signs of possible scientific misconduct seriously and is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
• If the team of editors have concerns about the publication ethics/research ethics of a submitted manuscript, in the first instance they will contact the author(s) to request further clarification.
• The editor will progress the situation by following the appropriate COPE flowchart: http://publicationethics.org/flowcharts
• If the editors still have concerns after discussion with the author(s) and the case is novel they may pass it to the BJOG ethics committee or present it as an annoymised case for discussion at COPE (Commmitte on Publication Ethics)
References
http://www.wame.org/resources/policies/
http://www.icmje.org/
