1 4 characteristics of peer 2 things to remember w hen review ers - PDF document

Department of Epidemiology Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research Review ing a paper for a scientific publication p for dummies Eliseo Guallar, MD, DrPH eguallar@jhsph.edu Objectives of peer review 3 types of journals  To provide advice to journal editors on the  Journals with full-time in-house editors and quality, relevance, and originality of papers paid associate editors being considered for publication g p  Journals with part-time editor(s) and a strong Journals with part time editor(s) and a strong  To improve the quality of published papers board of associate editors (non-paid) Presenter’s Name Presenter’s Name Date Date  Journals with part-time editor only 3 key judgments about a paper  Is it valid?  It is important?  Is it new?  Is it new? Presenter’s Name Presenter’s Name Date Date Wager E, et al. How to survive peer review. London: BMJ Books, 2002:5 1

4 characteristics of peer 2 things to remember w hen review ers preparing a review  Thorough  It is not your paper  Knowledgeable  It is not your journal  Timely  Timely  Curteous Presenter’s Name Presenter’s Name Date Date Wager E, et al. How to survive peer review. London: BMJ Books, 2002:23 Preparing a thorough review Preparing a thorough review (I) – Be systematic (II) – Contents of a manuscript  Title page  Follow the journal instructions  Abstract  Use a standard checklist  Introduction  CONSORT – Randomized clinical trial  Methods  STROBE – Observational studies  Results  Results  QUOROM – Meta-analysis of clinical trials  Discussion  MOOSE – Meta-analysis of observational studies Presenter’s Name  Acknowledgements Presenter’s Name Date Date  STARD – Report of a diagnostic test  References  Review the contents of all the sections of the  Tables manuscript  Figures  Appendices Preparing a thorough review Preparing a thorough review (III) – Conclusions (IV) – Some tips  Divide your comments into general and  Always check the conclusions at the end of specific comments the Abstract and the Discussion to check that  Number and label your comments they are supported by the data presented  Start with a paragraph summarizing the study and the conclusions and the conclusions  Describe the problems of the manuscript but Presenter’s Name Presenter’s Name do not give specific instructions to the authors Date Date (e.g., rewrite their text or tell the authors what statistical technique to use)  Do not write more than 2 pages (aim for 1 page) 2

Preparing a know ledgeable Preparing a timely review review  Decline reviewing papers that are too far  Protect enough time to do a good job away from your expertise  At least 4 h, but be prepared to devote 8 – 12 h  Perform a search to check the originality and  Meet the deadlines novelty of the study y y  Organize the work to minimize yout time Organize the work to minimize yout time  If you are preparing a methodological review, burden make sure that you are familiar with the field Presenter’s Name Presenter’s Name Date Date Preparing a courteous review In case of doubt …  Be as objective as possible  Contact the editor  Review the work, not the person  Do not use offensive or demeaning language  Maintain high ethical standards Maintain high ethical standards  Report your conflicts of interest to the editors  Do not take advantage of priviledged information Presenter’s Name Presenter’s Name Date Date  Maintain the confidentiality of all editorial correspondence  Do not contact the authors  Admit your limitations Open vs. closed peer review Presenter’s Name Presenter’s Name Date Date Smith R. The future of peer review. In Godlee F, Jefferson T, ed. Peer review in health Smith R. The future of peer review. In Godlee F, Jefferson T, ed. Peer review in health sciences. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books, 2003:329-46 sciences. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books, 2003:329-46 3