Towards uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to journals in occupational medicine.

Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to bio-medical journals were first published in 1978 [1] and have since been adopted by most major periodicals. This has not been the case in occupational medicine, however, and there are currently no standard guidelines being followed for manuscripts in our field. A brief look at the editorial policies of eight major journals from four global regions (Table 1) reveals some clear inconsistencies in this regard. There are three main types of peer review: fully open, double blinded or single blinded. Fully open is probably the easiest, as it requires less editorial effort when the author's identity does not have to be concealed, and blinded reviewers may be able to guess who the author is anyway [2]. On the other hand, younger reviewers might be reluctant to criticize their peers in a fully open process, and as such, the political power of established scientists would increase [3]. The single-blinded process is similarly problematic, as reviewers may choose to hide behind their anonymity and overly criticize a paper [4]. Personal bias, professional rivalry and previous experiences with an author may also influence their review, beyond the scientific. The two most common methods of in-text referencing are the 'Harvard' and 'Vancouver' systems, and similar to peer reviewing, certain inconsistencies currently exist in the referencing systems used in occupational medicine periodicals. Although the Harvard system allows readers to keep track of which reference is responsible for which idea as they read, it has the disadvantage of taking up journal space and disrupting the flow of text. The Vancouver Table 1. Peer review and referencing systems of some typical journals in occupational medicine Journal title a