Outline of Presentation

Transcription

1 WHAT IS VALUE IN HEALTH DOING FOR ITS AUTHORS? Michael Drummond C. Daniel Mullins Co-Editors-in-Chief Value in Health Outline of Presentation Scope and Overview of Value in Health What Value in Health editors look for in submissions How Value in Health editors perform peer review New benefits for authors who publish in Value in Health

2 Scope and Overview of Value in Health Given that the ultimate purpose of health care is to increase the overall health-related well being of individuals and society as a whole in an efficient manner, the content of Value in Health focuses on health care value. Scope and Overview of Value in Health Review our Guide for Authors Scope Types of Articles Suggestions for authors Review any ISPOR Task Force reports on Good Practices for Outcomes Research published in Value in Health that are relevant to your paper

3 Scope of Value in Health Economic evaluations Patient-reported outcomes Preference-based assessments Comparative effectiveness research/health technology assessment Health policy analyses Article Categories Original research Methodological articles (on any topic within scope) Policy perspectives Systematic reviews (on any topic within scope) Brief reports (on any topic within scope) Commentaries Task force reports (by invitation only) Editorials (by invitation only) Letters to the editor

4 Submissions Received 2013: 522 (185 as of May 1, 2013) 2014: 221 (as of May 1, 2014) Rejected without Review 2013: 224 (43%) 2014: 74 (33%) (as of May 1, 2014)

5 Accepted 2013: 112 (21.5%) 2014: 24 (11%) (as of May 1, 2014) What Value in Health editors look for in submissions

6 General Principles The journal is interested in methodological papers and policy papers, as well as empirical studies Reviews should be systematic (unless part of a Commentary) Consult any relevant ISPOR Good Practices Task Force reports Think about the distinctive contribution of your paper to methods and/or policy Level of Interest in a Paper Rigor and Transparency of Methods Policy Relevance and Impact

7 Level of Interest by Category Comparative effectiveness/hta - papers must address issues of value beyond clinical effect Burden/cost of Illness studies - papers must have high policy interest, or incorporate methodological advances Country adaptations - must make a substantial contribution to the literature (eg. Discussing methodological issues in adaptation of the analysis or the influence/importance of local health system characteristics on the interpretation of results) Editors Overall Level of Interest for Submissions to Value in Health Value in Health welcomes papers that make substantial contributions by providing new evidence or ideas that extend the current knowledge base. As such, manuscripts should describe the unique contribution of the article and place the current paper in context with prior publications.

8 Key Points Submitted along with the paper Should not summarize the article, but rather should highlight the novel insights that the paper provides Should address the following: - What is already known about the topic? - What does the paper add to existing knowledge? - What insights does the paper provide for informing health carerelated decision making? (optional) How Value in Health editors performs peer review

9 Editorial Review Process Initial Decision re: Peer Review Initial review by Co-Editor-in-Chief Reject without review Assign to co-editor Review by Co-Editor Reject without review Pre-review request for edits Peer Review Reject without review Scope Merit Peer Review Process Reviews from approx 3 reviewers Comments to authors Private comments to co-editor (Non-binding) Recommendation Accept Revise and resubmit (R&R) minor R&R - major Reject

10 Editorial Review Process Initial Decision post Peer Review Co-editor decision based upon Peer reviewers public comments Peer reviewers private comments Peer reviewers recommendations Co-editor s assessment of manuscript Decision recommended to co-editor-in-chief Accept; R&R minor; R&R major; Reject All decisions approved or return to co-editor All decisions made by two editors Editorial Review Process Common Reasons for Rejection Lack of novel contribution Inherently not of interest to our readers Small addition to existing literature Does not address the so what question Study design not appropriate/insufficient Does not use appropriate methods Selection bias Dataset

11 Editorial Review Process Common Reasons for Rejection Lack of novel contribution First study to examine XXX or in country YY is not sufficient Results are not actionable, meaningful Study design not appropriate/insufficient Lack of variables to address confounding Insufficient justification of cohort Editorial Review Process Common Reasons for Acceptance Significant topic New evidence of value Rigorous and transparent methods Appropriate analytic techniques Sufficient description of what was done Policy implications are clear Results likely to impact coverage, utilization

12 New benefits for authors who publish in Value in Health New benefits for authors who publish in Value in Health Greater focus on most promising papers Faster quick rejections Greater attention to peer review of most promising papers Highlighted papers Issue highlight Section Highlight Publicity through blasts

13 Potential future benefits for authors who publish in Value in Health More publicity options Tweets Editors comments Enhanced press release process More data on highlighted papers Anticipated future impact factor Additional Information Value in Health Guide for Authors