As a reviewer for the Journal of the Louisiana Health Information Management Association you have an important role. You will assist the editor of the Journal by determining the acceptability and suitability of a manuscript for inclusion in the Journal. Although this is a new journal, the goal is to ensure high standards for the articles that are published.

Please use the Manuscript Review Form to evaluate the manuscript. Return this form to Anita Hazelwood at hazelwd@louisiana.edu within three weeks of receipt of the manuscript. You may want to review the Guidelines for Authors before beginning your evaluation.

In order to maintain the impartiality of our review process, please return the manuscript immediately to the editor if you feel that there may be a conflict of interest for you (possibly you are doing research on the same subject) in judging this manuscript.

Consider the following guidelines when making a recommendation to accept or reject. Only rarely are manuscripts accepted without some revisions.

• Accept without revisions: The manuscript contains new, timely information; data is clearly presented; discussions and conclusions flow logically from data; title and length are appropriate; good language and readability; citations complete.
  
• Accept with minor revisions: The manuscript requires only minor revisions and re-review may not be necessary. The manuscript has no major flaws in concept or logic; it adds some new information; the analysis is appropriate; language is good; citations are reasonable.
  
• Major revisions required: The material is already well described in literature; re-review necessary; study organization, data collection, or methods are flawed; analysis inadequate or inappropriate; disconnect between data and conclusions; incomplete or excessive citations.
  
• Rework and re-submit/reject: Revision is unlikely to lead to acceptance; flawed beyond repair or not appropriate for the Journal of the Louisiana Health Information Management Association.

Please note possible breaches of publication policy or ethical conduct such as plagiarism, missing or incomplete references, dual submission or conflicts of interest.

Your criticism, arguments and suggestions concerning the paper will be most helpful to the editor and to the author if they are carefully documented. If there are errors, try to be very specific unless they are too numerous to document.

Suggested revisions should be described as such and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Remarks should reflect positive elements as well as negatives. Please frame your comments in as constructive and professional a manner as possible.

It is not necessary to make editorial remarks on minor punctuation, spelling or grammar, as accepted papers are edited before publication. The editor of the Journal will copy edit the manuscript but certainly you can help identify errors such as use of outmoded terminology, or incorrect or outdated scientific principles.