Roya Kelishadi,MD Isfahan University of Medical Sciences Dec18,2018

Peer review goal

Why does Peer Review work? We see our writing ‘through’ another person. We see how other researchers think and write. We see others’ writing strengths & weaknesses. We see new ideas and new ways of explaining ideas. We learn to look at our own writing in a different way.

When does peer review work best? -When you need overall feedback: How does it sound? What do you think? Does it make sense? -When you need specific feedback: Thesis statement Topic Sentences Organization Syntax, Grammar, Punctuation, and Spelling

Peer-review Process When a paper arrives at a journal’s editorial office a few things can happen: A. Editor reviews paper herself/himself B. Editor assigns to Associate Editor C. Editor or AE assigns to Peer Reviewers

Journal Decision Editor Receipt of manuscript by editorial asst Manuscript Reviews Peer Reviewers Masked review Journal Decision Editor Manuscript Yes Revise-Acceptance ? Revise-Accepted Acceptance - Outright Rejection - Outright No - DOA Editor Title & Abstract Headings References Tables/Figures Read Through Receipt of manuscript by editorial asst Appropriate to journal? Conform to guidelines? Editor Reports Summary of peer reviews Summary of editor’s review

Peer-review Process What to look for 1. Appropriateness for the journal Is the topic relevant to the journal? Is the topic timely? Is the topic significant? Is the study unique? If so, How?

Peer-review Process 2. What type of paper/research is it? If research, how is it structured? Randomized, controlled, blinded Meta-analysis? Retrospective? Case series or single case

Editors and Peer-review Process Editors/Peer Reviewers look for: Did the author follow the instructions of the journal? Correct Number of Authors? Conflict of Interest/Disclosure Statement? Copyright release signed? Informed consent (if applicable)/Ethics considerations

Peer-review Process Did the author follow the Instructions of the journal? Is the article format correct? – Structured abstract? – Correct article format (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, Refs?) – Are References in correct format?

Peer-review Process Peer Reviewers look for: Are the technical aspects correct? Research Structure: Correctly described and performed? Statistics: Correct analysis? Accurate interpretation? Clear presentation?

Peer-review Process Editors/Peer Reviewers look for: Technical aspects, continued Tables and Figures: Accurate and clear structure, presentation, and presentation? Do the numbers add up? Are the data consistent with the body of the paper?

Peer-review Process Editors/Peer Reviewers look for: Technical aspects, continued Abstract & Body of paper Do number of patients, other data match? Conclusions consistent?

Simple manuscript writing as 19 Sentences Introduction #1: What we know #2: What we don’t know. #3: What we did to find out Methods #4: participant selection #5-9: variables and procedures for each primary and secondary objective #10: analytic methods Results #11 Patient recruitment and characteristics #12 Evidence for first objective #13 Evidence for second objective #14 Evidence for third objective Discussion #15 Summarize main finding #16 Summarize supporting findings #17 What are the implications/how does it change practice? #18 Limitations #19 Summary/conclusion

Journal Editor: What’s A Good Manuscript? Title descriptive and specific Abstract descriptive, specific, and correct length Introduction and background short and strong Research question clearly stated Literature cited is comprehensive and relevant Methods descriptive enough to be replicated; appropriate statistical analyses Figures and Tables stand on their own, support conclusions, well constructed Citations relevant to topic Discussion within boundaries of findings; demonstrate how findings have helped resolve stated problem; implications and future work addressed Writing clear, terse, logical Manuscript follows journal guidelines

Checklists for peer review General Checklist for all types of Studies STROBE Checklist for CROSS-SECTIONAL studies STROBE Checklist for CASE CONTROL studies STROBE Checklist for COHORT Studies STROBE Checklist for Observational studies 

CONSORT Checklist for RANDOMIZED TRIALS  PRISMA Checklist for Systematic reviews and META ANALYSIS | Critical Appraisal of META ANALYSIS MOOSE Checklist for META ANALYSIS STARD Checklist for DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY

TREND Checklist for BEHAVIORAL and Public Health Interventions  REMARK Checklist for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies |  COREQ Checklist for Qualitative Research: Interviews and Focus Groups |  CARE Checklist for CASE REPORTS |  AGREE Checklist for Clinical Practice GUIDELINES 

Simple checklist for reviewers

Title Proper manuscript TITLE? Does the title reflect the content appropriately? Is there any abbreviation in the TITLE? Importance and originality or the subject? (Is the information, or the interpretation of the information, new?)

Abstract Is there structured ABSTRACT? How many words are there in the ABSTRACT (Count = 250-350)? Accurateness and adequacy of the ABSTRACT? (Does the abstract describe the content accurately?) Are KEYWORDS (3-10) selected form MeSH?

Introduction Clarity of the objectives/hypotheses? (Are the objectives clearly stated?) Does INTRODUCTION include: “What we know”, “What we do not know” , and “What we want to do”? Is the introduction short?

Methods Clearly describe selection of participants (patients or laboratory animals, including controls)? Study Design Described Sufficiently? Adequacy of the sample studied? Subjects Representative of Target Population?

Methods (cont.) Identify the methods, apparatus (give the manufacturer’s name and address in parentheses)? Identify procedures in sufficient detail to allow other workers to reproduce the results? Give references to established methods and brief descriptions for methods that have been published but are not well known?

Methods (Cont.) Identify precisely all drugs and chemicals used, including generic name(s), dose(s), and route(s) of administration? Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria Explained? Appropriate Statistical Analysis? Identified all statistical methods unambiguously? Explain Ethical Considerations?

Results Accuracy of the interpretation of RESULTS? RESULTS recorded appropriately? Appropriateness, clarity, and adequacy of the TABLES AND FIGURES? Present results in logical sequence in the text, tables, and illustrations, giving the main or most important findings? Repeat the data in the tables and Text? Emphasize or summarize only important observations?

Results(Cont.) Any Appendix for extra or supplementary materials and technical detail? Restrict tables and figures to those needed to explain the argument of the paper and to assess its support? Use graphs as an alternative to tables with many entries? Duplicate data in graphs and tables? Use technical terms as non-technical in statistics, such as “random” (which implies a randomizing device), “normal,” “significant,” “correlations,” and “sample.”?

Discussion Relevance of the DISCUSSION section? CONCLUSIONS justified & substantiated? What CONCLUSIONS would you draw from these results? Analysis supports CONCLUSIONS? Are the conclusions supported by the discussion?

References Appropriateness of the references? Proper Writing of the references? Update references? Which type of writing is observed for references (Vancouver, Harward, Oxford, etc)? Indicate references in parentheses?

General view Proper Style for biomedical writing? Define unique terms and acronyms the first time used? Proper English grammar and writing? Which sections are too long? Which sections are too short?

General view (Cont.) Which sections of this manuscript could be misunderstood? Describe the three major weaknesses of this paper: What additional information would you need to reproduce this study? Your Final Conclusion is: Approve, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Decline

Final suggestion

Let’s NOT suppose this kind of peer review!