About & policies · Journal of Reproducible Health Sciences

Author feedback

last updated 2026-09-04

After every published paper we ask the corresponding author what the process was like. This page carries the answers, the questionnaire they come from and the rules we publish them under.

Who we ask

Authors of published articles receive the full questionnaire once their article is live, with one reminder after fourteen days and then silence. A signed rejection carries three short questions in its last paragraph instead, about the decision letter and about how we handled the submission. The numbers on this page and on the journal home come from the published authors and say so. The answers to those three questions stay with the editors. Without them we would hear only from the authors whose papers we accepted.

One questionnaire goes out per paper, to the corresponding author, who is free to pass it to whoever handled the submission. Answers are linked to that submission, which is what makes it possible to read them against the record of the review. Nobody is asked to identify themselves again.

What we publish, and when

Nothing at all is published below ten responses. From ten responses upward we publish the aggregate figures, which are the means and the top-two-box shares of the core items. Every figure carries its own count, the window it was collected in and the response rate, because a share without its denominator is decoration.

From fifteen responses we release the anonymised item-level dataset with the core items and the coarse context of each response. Free-text answers are never part of it. From thirty responses the stratifying covariates join the release and the published breakdowns, and any group holding fewer than three records is withheld. Disclosure control runs with sdcMicro before every release, and the release is repeated once a year on the larger set.

The comparison item asks how the review compared with the last journal the author submitted to. Its published figure counts every author who answered it, including those who had no comparison to make, so it is a share of all of them and never of a selected few.

What happens to your answers

Answers are linked to the submission they belong to and are read only by the editors of this journal. They are published as aggregates of ten or more responses, never with a name. Free-text answers are quoted on the site only with the author's explicit permission, given on the form itself, and an editor checks any quote for identifying detail before it is used.

We keep the answers as long as the journal exists and never pass them to third parties. You can ask editorial@fairpressjournals.com to delete your answers at any time. What the review process itself looks like is described in the peer-review policy.

The results so far

The first results appear here once ten authors have answered.

The questionnaire

Core items keep their wording and their scale for good. Anything we add later joins as a module with its own version, and every response stores the version it was answered under. This is version 1.0 of the instrument, and the file the form is built from is published as questionnaire-v1.0.json.

The core items, with the scale each one is answered on.

CodeQuestionAnswer scale
A1The submission requirements (manuscript, source files, reproducibility materials) were clear before I started.1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
A2The submission form was easy to complete.1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
A4Preparing the reproducibility materials (code, data, run command) for this paper took me:no extra work, under an hour, a few hours, a day or more, not applicable
A5That preparation improved my paper.1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree, or not applicable
B1The reviews identified the issues that mattered most in my manuscript.1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
B2The reviews contained errors or misunderstandings of my manuscript.1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
B3The requested changes were proportionate to the paper's contribution.1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
B5The tone of the reviews was respectful and professional.1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
B6The reviews helped me improve the paper.1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
B7Compared with the peer review at the last journal you submitted to, this review was:much worse, worse, about the same, better, much better, no comparison possible
B8Compared with the last journal you submitted to, the time to the first decision was:much slower, slower, about the same, faster, much faster, no comparison possible
C1The decision letter made clear what the decision rested on.1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
C2Communication from the editors was clear and timely.1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
E2The published article (HTML, PDF, reproducibility package) is presented as I would wish.1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
F1Overall, how satisfied are you with publishing in this journal?1 very dissatisfied to 5 very satisfied
F2How likely are you to recommend the journal to a colleague?0 to 10
F3I would submit to this journal again.1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree