Editorial review process
To ensure quality standards, there is a process of peer review before a draft final report is published in the journal series. This involves at least four referees, who provide clinical, methodological and health economic input. Where possible a referee proposed by the author is also included. Reviewers are asked to return their comments by a specified date (usually six weeks).
Editorial input
When all the comments have been returned to the HTA programme, an editor reviews all the papers and feedback is given to the author. Ideally, all of this takes place within three months of receipt of their draft final report. The author is invited to resubmit their revised report within eight weeks. This must be accompanied by a letter detailing the changes that have/have not been made in response to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments. The editor makes a judgement about whether the author has adequately addressed the reviewers’ comments. If the changes are not considered suitable, the author will be asked to make further revisions. Occasionally, the editor may ask for the revised draft final report to be re-reviewed. When the editor is satisfied that a report is acceptable for publication, the author is informed and the report is sent to a publisher for copy-editing and type-setting, a process that commonly takes 21-24 weeks. This process is overseen by the HTA Editorial Board
News feeds