Reviewer Guidelines

This guide outlines areas reviewers should keep in mind when reviewing a manuscript for the Australasian Journal of Paramedicine (AJP). Information about the journal’s scope is available from the journal home page.

One of the journal’s aims is to assist in developing a body of knowledge for the paramedicine discipline thereby aiding in the progress of the discipline to a professional level, which is on par with other health professions.

The AJP normally seeks the views of three reviewers and asks them either accept, seek revisions, or reject the manuscript. The reviewers are also asked to raise issues regarding unethical research conduct. The reviewer will be asked to declare any conflicts of interest.

One of the main aims of the AJP is to reduce the loss to the research community when studies remain unpublished on the basis of small sample size, limited usefulness, scientific advance or level of interest. The AJP therefore provides a repository for short publications, case series, incremental updates to previous work, results of individual experiments, results of confirmatory and 'negative' results, and similar material that currently lacks a suitable repository. Therefore we ask that you do not make your decision based on perceived interest level alone.

Areas to Consider During the Review

Please use the following headings as a guide for completing your review.

The Introduction

  • Is there sufficient background information about the topic/study?
  • Is there a reason identified for the study?
  • If this manuscript is not original or a repeat of previous work, is the original reference(s) clearly stated?
  • Is there a defined research question/hypothesis?

The Methods

  • Is the methods section structured according to the AJP author guidelines?
  • Is there sufficient information in the methods section for the study to be replicated?
  • Is the methodology appropriate?
  • Does the methods section contain other information apart from how the study was conducted, i.e. some results?
  • Please state where improvements to the study design could be made, if needed?
  • Is there any issue with the ethical conduct of the study and/or the way the manuscript is written?

The Results

  • Does the results section contain results only?
  • Do the results answer the research question/hypothesis?
  • Is all data accounted for? Is there missing data?
  • Have the appropriate statistical tests been used?
  • Are the results replicated in the table(s)/figure(s)?
  • Should the raw data, literature search criteria or questionnaire be included as supplementary data?

The Discussion

  • Is the interpretation of the study findings conducted without bias and supported with other relevant studies?
  • Are conclusions derived from the study data an accurate representation?
  • Are there any potentially relevant references missing?
  • Are recommendations required?
  • Is there a study limitations paragraph?

The Conclusion

  • This should succinctly summarise the study and contain no new information or references.

The References

  • These should be in the Vancouver style and use the recognised journal abbreviations.


  • Is the data presented in a logical manner? Could it be presented in a better way?

Quality of English/Grammar

  • Is the language/grammar in the manuscript of an acceptable standard to be published without further editing or does it require the review of a copy editor by the author?

Statistical Review

  • Are you able to review the statistical analysis or does the statistical analysis section of the manuscript need to be reviewed by a statistician?

Declaration of Competing Interest

  • The reviewer should declare any conflicts of interest associated with reviewing the manuscript.


  • Does this manuscript provide something new?
  • Please comment on any area for improvement.
  • Are there areas of revision that require focussed attention?
  • The manuscript remains confidential until it is published.