Search

Objectives. To investigate the rate of manuscript submission to a major peer-reviewed journal (American Journal of Public Health) by gender, comparing periods before and during the pandemic. Methods. We used data from January 1 to May 12, 2020, and defined the start of the pandemic period by country as the first date of 50 or more confirmed cases. We used an algorithm to classify gender based on first name and nation of origin. We included authors whose gender could be estimated with a certainty of at least 95%. Results. Submission rates were higher overall during the pandemic compared with before. Increases were higher for submissions from men compared with women (41.9% vs 10.9% for corresponding author). For the United States, submissions increased 23.8% for men but only 7.9% for women. Women authored 29.4% of COVID-19–related articles. Conclusions. Our findings suggest that the pandemic exacerbated gender imbalances in scientific research.

OBJECTIVES. Cloth diapers with front closure and all-in-one design were compared with paper diapers containing absorbent gel material for their influence on fecal contamination of the environment in licensed child day care centers. METHODS. One infant room and two toddler rooms in each of four day care centers were monitored for the presence of fecal bacteria. Microbial samples were taken from the play/sleep area, the diaper-changing area, and the hands of the caregivers and the children. Sampling was done twice weekly for two 4-week periods. Each center used either cloth or paper diapers during the first period, changing to the other diaper type during the second period. RESULTS. A total of 1722 samples were cultured, 881 during the first 4 weeks and 841 during the second 4 weeks. The frequency of isolation of fecal organisms ranged from a low of 12% of the total bacteria isolates at a center using cloth diapers, to highs of 46% and 45%, respectively, at a center using first paper and then cloth diapers. Sink faucets and the hands of the caregivers and the children were often contaminated. CONCLUSIONS. Analysis of the results of comparisons between cloth and paper diapers showed no significant difference in the frequency (F = .380, P < .535) or the intensity of fecal contamination in child day care centers.

The article discusses the publication's editorial team's benchmark of processing 10,000 submissions as of September 2018 since it began its activity in June 2015 and offers a description of how the editorial process works for full-length papers.

We reviewed the authorship characteristics, editorial processing, and final fate of 126 papers dealing with data from countries other than the United States and Canada and submitted to the American Journal of Public Health in 1989. The acceptance rate of these international health papers was 22%, similar to that of all papers (25%). Authors from developed countries had higher acceptance rates than authors from developing countries, but the highest acceptance rate (36%) was for international health papers with joint authorship from both developed and developing countries. Of 83 rejected papers, 72% were published in other journals. Of these, 45% were published in journals covered by Index Medicus, a figure similar to that for all papers rejected by the Journal.

The importance of reviewers to the American Journal of Public Health publication process cannot be underestimated. Without our reviewers, the Journal would not only be worse off but would actually fail to exist as the quality vehicle for dissemination of public health information that it strives to be. As editors, we are proud to read submissions and screen them for validity and contribution, but we rely heavily on the expertise of reviewers for their precise comments and critical responses that maintain the Journal’s quality and significance. The past year has brought many exciting changes for the Journal, including the hiring of new editorial and production staff and, most notably, the unveiling of a new Web-based electronic submission system. These changes have inspired considerable conversation among the editorial staff about the value of our review process and, of course, the value of our reviewers. Because we have the utmost appreciation for our reviewers, we have made it a priority to provide as much support and guidance as they would like. As part of our commitment to the process, we have developed reviewer recommendations to make the job of the reviewer easier and more efficient. Because one person’s ease and efficiency is another’s headache, these guidelines and recommendations come with an invitation to read the following once, 10 times, or not at all—indeed, these are simply guidelines for those who want them, not rules carved into stone. Of course, no list is complete without the requisite caveats, and the reviewer recommendations are no exception. The following recommendations represent 2 sets of thoughts about the reviewer’s role: the rules we depend on and the exceptions we make to these rules. Our reviewers should know that no guidelines are inflexible, and the ultimate goal of disseminating quality work that furthers the field of public health is never sacrificed for rigidity or bureaucracy. We aim to keep this overall goal in sight every time we read a submission. We hope that these reviewer recommendations will empower reviewers to be part of the Journal’s contribution to the larger public health community and discourse.