{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027194066749072928, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02781211372064277, 'mean_word_length': 4.74113475177305, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Health promotion intervention studies critical appraisal checklist

When the interim editorial team took over from the former Editors in September 2002, there were many aspects of the production and editing process for us to understand. This initial period also involved setting up a new system of administration that would clearly track all correspondence with authors and reviewers. Of the new papers received since September 2002, two-thirds were submitted by female first authors. Forty per cent of the papers received were from NSW, 22% were from Queensland, 18% were from Victoria, 14% were from Western Australia, 2% were from South Australia, and there was one paper each from New Zealand and Canada. This may reflect recent strengths in NSW, but could also indicate a wide variation between years. A quick check of the State given for the corresponding author in papers published in 2001 indicates that 31% were from Victoria, 23% were from other countries, 18% were from NSW, 14% were from Western Australia and the rest from Queensland, South Australia, ACT and Northern Territory. Of the new papers received 26% were rejected, 26% were published, 10% have been accepted, 8% are with authors for revision and 30% are being reviewed. None had lapsed or been withdrawn. An overview of the status of all papers with the Journal up to 30 April 2003 is presented in Table 1. It is apparent that the rejection rate for new papers has increased (to 26%) and this is consistent with the editorial aim of improving the standard of the Journal. It is also apparent that far fewer papers have lapsed or been withdrawn.