WHAT THE EDITOR LOOKS FOR IN REVIEWING THE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Stephen A. Boorjian, MD Carl Rosen Professor of Urology Vice Chair of Research Director, Urologic Oncology Fellowship Department of Urology Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

DISCLOSURES Financial: none Intellectual: “this is how I do it” Many approaches can be successful

OUTLINE FOR TALK Section-by-section manuscript review tips Importance of serving as a manuscript reviewer Conclusions

KEY THEME Consider the same features in reviewing a paper as when writing

POINTS TO CONSIDER DURING REVIEW Originality of question/topic “Robustness” of dataset Appropriate methodology Importance of findings Do the present data add in a meaningful and significant way to the existing literature on the topic?

SEQUENCE OF “HOW I DO” A MANUSCRIPT REVIEW Title Abstract Methods Results (text + tables/figures) References Introduction Discussion/conclusions

ABSTRACT Very important – often only part of manuscript read Can it be read as a stand-along representation of manuscript? Critical methodology/data included Conclusions supported by data provided (Does it follow the journal’s guidelines?)

RESULTS KEY SECTION OF MANUSCRIPT “Non-fixable” with revisions (For clinical studies): Size of dataset (power of analyses) Duration of follow-up for endpoint of interest and disease state being studied 2 years ok to report mortality in mRCC 2 years not ok for mortality in localized PCa

RESULTS Are relevant demographic details regarding study population and treatment provided? Are the outcome measures reported appropriate and sufficient? i.e. text should not present p values only, but raw numbers (%) provided as well Do the reported findings make sense? RFS, CSS, OS congruous?

REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT TABLES “Readability” Too much/too little data provided to easily read Are all tables referenced in text? Do tables/text present duplicate data? Are conflicting data presented? Do the numbers in the table add-up?

REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT TABLES Sequence/completeness of tables Demographic data Univariable comparisons Multivariable models HR, 95% CI, p values provided

REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT FIGURES Are all the figures included necessary? No duplication Is data presentation clear and not mis-labeled? Appropriate axis/scales on graphs Can figures be read “stand-alone” (without accompanying text)? For Kaplan-Meier curve: p values provided Number of patients at risk at various timepoints provided

DISCUSSION SECTION Orderly flow Summarize results Contextualize results = KEY! In light of existing literature on the topic Explain discrepancies in findings from prior similar series Methodology, study population Offer why present study = unique

DISCUSSION SECTION Paragraph detailing study limitations Conclusions (in this section or as stand-alone section) Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? Does the manuscript leave you with a message regarding the importance of the study?

REFERENCES: A WINDOW TO THE AUTHORS Reflects authors’ familiarity with subject matter Marker of well-done paper I often read after abstract and before manuscript Review paper – absolutely critical (i.e. = “data”) Comprehensive + contemporary Most recent series if multiple from one center Will be reference basis for readers

REFERENCES: A WINDOW TO THE AUTHORS Original (non-review) paper – still essential Inclusive of relevant series Largest Contemporary Best datasets Look at quality of journals cited – JAMA, JCO, Eur Urol Avoid over self-citation But – appropriate referencing of one’s prior work may reflect expertise in subject area

MISCELLANEOUS REVIEW COMMENTS Does the manuscript follow journal guidelines? Length of abstract/manuscript Number/format for references Inclusion of all required sections (Take Home Message) Is the paper clearly formatted for another journal?!!! Cover letter addressed to another editor! Writing style/presentation If you found it hard to understand/read, so will target audience

ORGANIZING YOUR REVIEW FOR SUBMISSION: COMMENTS TO AUTHORS 2-3 sentence summary of manuscript/critical findings Major concerns/suggested changes Project concept, study design, study population Methodologic/statistical concerns Minor concerns References Modifications to tables/figures Formatting Do not comment on recommendation for manuscript acceptance/rejection

ORGANIZING YOUR REVIEW FOR SUBMISSION: COMMENTS TO EDITOR Brief summary of decision recommended and key points to support Originality of question “Robustness” of dataset Appropriate methodology Importance of findings Do the present data add in a meaningful and significant way to the existing literature on the topic? 2-3 sentences, not re-stating comments to authors

HOW TO GET BETTER AT MANUSCRIPT REVIEWS Practice, practice, practice Track disposition of manuscripts you review Read other reviewers’ comments

WHY IS MANUSCRIPT REVIEWING IMPORTANT TO DO FOR YOU?

BENEFITS OF SERVING AS A REVIEWER I: PERSONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT Become more facile at critical review Become a better author Types of analysis Presentation of data Reviewing a manuscript ≈ writing a good manuscript Stay abreast of current literature PubMed topic as part of review

BENEFITS OF SERVING AS A REVIEWER II: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Critical part of important process Currency of academics = peer-reviewed publications Opportunity for academic recognition Best Reviewer, Editorial Board positions Establishment of contacts Editors get to “know the name” Letters for academic promotion

BENEFITS OF SERVING AS A REVIEWER III FUN! Opportunity for “first-look” at new/exciting data Opportunity to improve quality of publications Diversion from other clinical/academic responsibilities

CONCLUSIONS Manuscript review should address: Originality of question “Robustness” of dataset Appropriate methodology Importance of findings Personal + professional benefits to reviewing Enjoy the process – “academic hobby”

THANK YOU Questions?