Skip to main content


Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 1 Summary of issues that influence the likelihood of rejection without review of articles submitted to Implementation Science

From: Implementation science: a reappraisal of our journal mission and scope

Issue Likely to be accepted Likely to be rejected
Potential significance Work contextualised within existing implementation research literature Work not contextualised within existing implementation research literature
Contribution to implementation research articulated and potentially significant Contribution to implementation research not articulated or relatively minor
Field of interest Healthcare and population health Anything else
Effectiveness studies Evaluating the effectiveness of implementation of an evidence-based practice or policy, or de-implementation of those demonstrated to be relatively ineffective or even harmful Evaluating the effectiveness of a clinical, organisational, public health or policy intervention
Outcome Health or health-related Anything else
Implementation Researching implementation Doing implementation
Validity Maximises internal and external validity as appropriate in the chosen study designs  
Patient decision aids Evaluations of the implementation of patient decision aids (of known effectiveness) into healthcare settings; involvement of healthcare providers Initial development, pilot testing or evaluation of patient decision aids
Implementation direct to patients Outcomes referring to evidence-based practice with some involvement of healthcare providers Other types of outcomes
Intervention development reports Prepared and submitted prior to the reporting of the effectiveness of the intervention Post hoc submission
Going to be, (robustly) evaluated Not going to be (robustly) evaluated
Providing empirical and/or theoretical rationale
Process evaluation Submitted contemporaneously with or following report of intervention effectiveness Process evaluations submitted in advance of the conduct of the main effectiveness analysis (it cannot be clear if they are explaining an effect or the absence of an effect)
Process evaluations that take account of the main evaluation outcomes Process evaluations that do not take account of the main evaluation outcomes
Pilot studies If appropriate criteria for conduct No justification for conduct
If appropriate degree of inference Overclaim on basis of results
If there are plans for further evaluation
Protocols Been through peer review by a nationally recognised research agency as part of their funding Not been through peer review by a nationally recognised research agency as part of their funding
Received ethics review board approval Not received ethics review board approval
Submitted prior to data cleaning or analysis Have begun data cleaning or analysis (may not apply to some qualitative studies)