Health Policy and Planning Advance Access originally published online on October 3, 2005
Health Policy and Planning 2005 20(6):NP; doi:10.1093/heapol/czi048
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Editorial |
Editorial
 |
Introduction |
|---|
 Top Introduction Audit of submissions, 2004 |
|---|
Welcome to this edition of Health Policy and Planning, celebrating our 20th year of publication. We are always happy to receive feedback from readers on articles published in the journal. This issue contains a lively exchange on an article by Hossain et al. (published in issue 20/1) presenting results of an evaluation of the Bangladesh Integrated Nutrition Project (BINP). Prompted by two letters challenging the interpretation of the study results, we asked Howard White of the World Bank, who has been closely involved in a study of the BINP conducted by the Bank, to provide a reflection on the balance of evidence about the effectiveness of the BINP. We hope you find this exchange of this ideas thought-provoking. We were delighted to host this debate, which is exactly the sort of debate and exchange we would like to see in HPP.
Health Policy and Planning's aim is to improve the design and implementation of health policies in low- and middle-income countries through providing a forum for publishing high quality research and original ideas, for an audience of policy and public health researchers and practitioners. HPP is published six times a year (2 monthly).
Specific objectives are to:
- Attract high quality research papers, reviews and debates on topics relevant to health policies in low- and middle-income countries;
- Ensure wide geographical coverage of papers including coverage of the poorest countries and those in transition;
- Encourage and support researchers from low- and middle-income countries to publish in HPP;
- Ensure papers reflect a broad range of disciplines, methodologies and topics;
- Ensure that papers are clearly explained and accessible to readers from the range of disciplines used to analyze health policies; and
- Provide a fair, supportive and high quality peer review process.
Our Instructions to authors have been updated. Authors should pay close attention to the factors that will increase likelihood of acceptance. As well as the high overall quality required for publication in an international journal, authors should address HPP's readership: national and international policy makers, practitioners, academics and general readers with a particular interest in health policy issues and debates. Manuscripts that fail to set out the international debates to which the paper contributes, and to draw out policy lessons and conclusions, are more likely to be rejected, returned to the authors for redrafting prior to being reviewed, or undergo a slower acceptance process. In addition, economists should note that papers accepted for publication in HPP will consider the broad policy implications of an economic analysis rather than focusing primarily on the methodological or theoretical aspects of the study. Public health specialists writing about a specific health problem or service should discuss the relevance of the analysis for the broader health system. Those submitting health policy analyses should draw on relevant bodies of theory in their analysis, or justify why they have not, rather than only presenting a narrative based on empirical data.
|
Audit of submissions, 2004 |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionAudit of submissions, 2004 |
|---|
During 2004, 215 unsolicited papers were submitted. By first author, the majority came from Asia (28%), Western Europe, including UK (25%), North America (22%) and Africa (16%), with considerably fewer from Latin America (3%), Eastern Europe (2%), the Middle East (2%) and Australasia (2%).
On geographical coverage of papers, over a third were on Asia (36%), with slightly fewer on Africa (33%), followed by North America/Western Europe (9%), Latin America (7%), Eastern Europe (3%), the Middle East (1%) and Australasia (1%). General papers formed 10% of submissions.
By the end of March 2005, 4% had been accepted, 71% rejected, 11% were with authors for revision and 14% were pending (original submissions with reviewers, resubmissions received/with reviewers). The mean length of time from submission to decision (including time for peer review for those papers not rejected outright) was 77 days. Mean length of time between submission and acceptance (including time for revisions) was 221 days (range 31–382). Mean length of time between acceptance and publication was 124 days (range 77–168). The table provides a comparison of the figures for 2002, 2003 and 2004.
|
We would like to thank all those who kindly reviewed papers for us in 2004:
Carla Abouzahr, Wendy Abramson, Taghreed Adam, Peter Aggleton, John Akin, Jane Alaii, Ann Ashworth-Hill, Ian Askew, Sarah Atkinson, Max Bachmann, Armando Barrientos, Bob Baulch, Carol Baume, Sara Bennett, Marge Berer, Peter Berman, Mrigesh Bhatia, Hans Binswanger, David Bishai, Claude Bodart, Josephine Borghi, Olga Bornemisza, Thomas Bossert, Meg Braddock, John Bratt, Logan Brenzel, John Bridges, Natalie Broutet, Jennifer Bryce, James Buchan, Colin Bullough, Kent Buse, Hilde Büttiens, Guy Carrin, Sarbani Chakraborty, John Chalker, Desmond Chavasse, John Cleland, Jillian Clare Cohen, Christophe Cornu, Julius Court, François Dabis, Vincent de Brouwere, Don de Savigny, Jane Doherty, David Dror, Carl-Ardy Dubois, Gilles Dussault, Ricca Edmondson, Karen Eggleston, Paulo E Elias, Tim Ensor, Jane Falkingham, Rachel Feilden, John Fiedler, Veronique Filippi, Karen Foreit, Allen Foster, Julia Fox-Rushby, Robert Fryatt, Suzanne Fustukian, Daniel Gatheru Wacira, Wenzel Geissler, Hellen Gelbrand, Lucy Gilson, Jean Gladwin, Cheri Grace, Richard Grieve, Anil Gumber, Helen Guyatt, Davidson Gwatkin, Trudy Harpham, Susanna Hausmann, Therese Hesketh, Jenny Hill, Peter Hill, John Hoddinot, Hans Hogerzeil, Charles Hongoro, Peter Hornby, Lisa Hurt, John Imrie, Paul Jacklin, Chris James, Stephen Jan, Barbara Janowitz, Anders Jeppsson, Rachel Jewkes, Johannes Jütting, Patrick Kachur, Jane M Kelly, Mahmud Khan, Karine Kielmann, Albert Kilian, Betty Kirkwood, Riitta-Liisa Kolehmainen-Aitken, Peter Kolsky, Anton Kunst, Kathleen Kurz, Soonman Kwon, Maria Eliana Labra, Richard Laing, Sally Lake, John Lavis, Charlotte Leighton, Christian Lengeler, Ruth Levine, Rene Levya Flores, Bernard Liese, Theo Lippeveld, Gordon G Liu, Knut Lönnroth, Stephen Luby, Joanna Macrae, Ajay Mahal, Dermot Maher, Deborah Maine, Vera Mann, Tanya Marchant, Tim Martineau, Javier Martinez, Philippe Mayaud, Barbara McPake, Pedro Mendoza-Arana, Omar Mensah, Catherine Michaud, Marc Mitchell, Zsolt Mogyorosy, Gavin Mooney, Kath Moser, William Muraskin, Susan Murray, Nancy Nachbar, Marie-Louise Newell, Gustavo Nigenda, Charles Normand, Sam Agatre Okuonzi, Stanislaw Orzeszyna, Piroska Östlin, Andrew Oxman, David Peters, Rudiger Pittrof, John Porter, Paul Pronyk, Mar Pujades, Ravindra Rannan-Eliya, Ritva Reinikka, Juan Rivera, Roisin Rooney, Alexander Rowe, Steven Russell, Rainer Sauerborn, Philippa Saunders, Helen Schneider, Kristian Schultz Hansen, Malcolm Segall, Priti Dave Sen, Dinesh Sethi, Matthew Shaw, Rima Shretta, Ina Silva dos Santos, Edina Sinanovic, Jolene Skordis, Robert Soeters, Julie Solo, Egbert Sondorp, Warren Stevens, Shenglan Tang, Viroj Tangcharoensathien, Michael Thiede, Birna Trap, Wim Van Damme, Judith Vandepitte, Patrick Vaughan, Cesar Victora, John Walley, Julia Walsh, Hong Wang, Hugh Waters, Jayne Webster, Jimmy Whitworth, David Wilkinson, Peter Winch, Brent Wolff, Eve Worrall, Robert Yates, Winnie Yip, John Young.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||