Registered charity no.1040450 England
Limited company registered no.2959883

for peer reviewers

  • You have kindly agreed to review a paper submitted to RHM for publication. Please read and follow the peer review guidelines. Please note that these guidelines were updated on 1 May 2013.

  • Please write your review in as much depth as you yourself would find helpful if it was your own paper. Be as constructive as possible, and if you think RHM should aim to accept the paper, give as much guidance as you can on how it must be improved.

  • RHM operates a system of open peer review, in which authors and readers know each others' names. Most reviewers and authors find this policy a positive experience; some even contact each other to share information. However, there are legitimate reasons why a review might better be done anonymously; if so, we will honour your request. Unless you tell us otherwise, however, we will assume the review is open.

  • You should treat the contents of the paper as confidential. You must not copy it or show it to anyone else, quote from it or use the information in your own work.

  • Please use the guidelines and return your review within 2 weeks of receiving the paper unless otherwise agreed.

  • As of 2013, Reproductive Health Matters has decided to consider video submissions. These must be accompanied by an explanatory narrative. If you have been asked to review a video submission, please read and follow the video peer review guidelines.

"There is one overarching compelling attribute of this paper. Namely, it summarises in one condensed explication a 35-year programme of research..."

"The paper should also include a better justification for focusing on deaths among single women. Aside from the fact that such data are scarce, why should the reader care about this subject?..."

"In the discussion... it would be beneficial if the author differentiated between institutions and individuals. This is important... in that it is not acceptable... for an institution, say a hospital, to be a conscientious objector."

"To condemn an entire programme based on the experiences with one of the many contraceptive options available weakens the argument."