1. 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

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

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

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

5. 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?

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

7. 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?)

8. 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

9. 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?

10. 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?

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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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?

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

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

21. WHY IS MANUSCRIPT REVIEWING IMPORTANT TO DO FOR YOU?

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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”

26. THANK YOU
Questions?