Submitting a Comment
In an effort to make the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) recommendations clear and transparent, draft recommendations and new topics will be posted here for public comment. Any visitor to this website can comment on any of the listed WPSI documents. However, readers should note that the WPSI Multidisciplinary Steering Committee (MSC) writes these documents for researchers, primary care doctors, and other health care providers, using medical and scientific language as appropriate for these audiences (1,2).
Once the draft recommendation is removed from the public comment page, WPSI begins considering comments and finalizing the document.
At the present time, WPSI cannot provide responses to individual comments.
There are no current opportunities for public comment. Thank you for your submissions.
Guidelines for Leaving Constructive Comments
In accordance with the external review process developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), WPSI requests that peer and public reviewers adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (3). In addition, WPSI encourages reviewers to follow the selected AHRQ guidelines outlined below in order to ensure high-quality comments (4):
- Be objective and constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve the draft report.
- Not make derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.
- Ensure that the review is based on the merits of the work and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual biases.
- Be specific in their criticisms, and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements such as, “this work has been done before,” to help editors in their evaluation and decision and in fairness to the authors.
- Remember it is the committee’s recommendation and not attempt to rewrite it to their own preferred style if is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important.
- Make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.
- Not suggest that authors include citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work merely to increase the reviewer’s (or their associates’) citation count or to enhance the visibility of their or their associates’ work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons.
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Public comments and nominations. Rockville (MD): USPSTF; 2016. Retrieved August 4, 2016.
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Opportunity for public comment. Rockville (MD): USPSTF; 2014. Retrieved August 4, 2016.
- Hames I. COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics; 2013. Retrieved August 4, 2016.
- Effective Health Care Program. Guidelines for peer and public reviewers. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013. Retrieved August 4, 2016.