Health Economics Research Paper

Fill out the written feedback form attached to this order (provide comments on the right of the table) and use track changes to review the attached research paper.

Reviewers need to use track change to provide constructive feedback for the authors!
Below please find a sample of reviewers’ comments to a submitted paper to the World Health & Population.

Thank you for agreeing to review the attached manuscript.

Some background on the journal:
World Health and Population (WHP) provides a forum for researchers and policymakers worldwide to publish original research, reviews, and commentaries on health- and population-related topics. WHP encourages the conduct and dissemination of applied research and policy analysis from diverse international settings. It is the goal of WHP to explore ideas, share best practices, and enable excellence in healthcare worldwide through publishing contributions by researchers, policymakers, and practitioners from these settings. Submissions of particular interest include evaluations of health and population interventions, which allow researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to gain insights further to promote the health and welfare of served populations.

Our preferred length for research papers is approximately 3,500 words (12-15 typewritten, double-spaced pages) inclusive of 4 figures and 4 tables. Submissions must include an abstract of 150 words or less. Pages should be numbered consecutively throughout.

Manuscript Title: ……
Reviewer: …………….

Date: ___………….

Reviewer’s Recommendation for Editors
(Please bold/underline your recommendation)

Accept as is with minor editing, Accept with minor revisions.

Revise/Resubmit Reject
________________________________________________________________________

Reviewer’s comments for editors ONLY

Publication Priority
(Please bold/underline your recommendation)

Please rate the publication priority from 1 (routine) to 5 (fast track):
1 2 3 4 5
Routine Fast Track
______________________________________________________________
Rating (Please bold/underline your recommendation)
Please rate the paper from 1 (poor) to 5 (superior) on the following measures:
Overall Quality 1 2 3 4 5
Originality 1 2 3 4 5
Data 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
Analysis/Methods 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
Conclusions 1 2 3 4 5
Balance 1 2 3 4 5
Writing 1 2 3 4 5
Policy Relevance 1 2 3 4 5
________________________________________________________________________

Reviewer’s comments for author(s)

I would like to thank the author for their submission. I agree with the author that there is a strong need to strengthen XXXXX care services in Country X and improved organization in itself would go a long way to improving patient care.
However, there were some difficulties with the paper in a number of aspects which led to the recommendation to reject it for publication in this journal:
The paper does not have clearly designated sections or flow, so it is difficult to understand how the statements fit together to form a cohesive paper.
It was not clear what the final recommendations were in terms of: new policy, new organization, new referral pathways, make-up of the XXXXX team
It was not possible to determine a clear call to action for the reader based on these recommendations
I have a working knowledge of XXXXX care and organization in Country X and around Sao Paulo and the working of the SUS system yet I found the article difficult to interpret. I believe the general international audience of this journal will struggle to understand and apply the message.

Unfortunately, in its current format, I do not feel the paper is understandable or relevant to this journal’s broad international audience. I have used track change in the attached file to provide more constructive feedback for the author.

I hope the authors persevere and revise the document and submit it again to a more appropriate journal. There is a considerable need for advocacy for improved organization of XXXXX care services in Country X.

Let me know if you have any questions