1. The Art of Peer Reviewing:
Providing a Comprehensive Review of a Manuscript
Presenters
Jon O Neher, MD
Valerie King, MD
Fred Tudiver, MD

2. What Is FPIN? FPIN is a bi-national academic consortium
FPIN is a membership organization
FPIN is not for profit & self governing
FPIN is a virtual knowledge community
FPIN members include family medicine departments, residency programs, academic health science librarians, practice based research networks…..

3. History of FPIN Conceptualized in 1998 for AAFP research center grant
Funded by AAFPs Univ. of Missouri FP Research Center
First introduced to a national audience at STFM in 2000
Incorporated as a non-for-profit in 2001
Board of Directors meet for the first time at STFM in 2002
Form, storm, reform, perform

4. The FPIN Mission
We are dedicated to improving patient care by using information technology to:
translate useful research evidence into practice,
teach the clinical scholarship of research translation, and
facilitate the generation of new evidence from practice.

5. The FPIN Vision
Our ultimate goal is answering 80% of questions with the best available evidence within 60 seconds of the clinician’s time at the point of care.
Here is how we can achieve the goal…

6. Achieving the FPIN Vision
Identify the most important questions asked by practicing family physicians
Conduct a comprehensive structured search of the world’s most up-to-date literature
Select and critically appraise the original evidence
Write the answer
For Clinical Inquiries: Assemble a team of 6-8, to include clinical author(s), editor(s), a librarian, peer reviewer(s), and a clinical commentator
Verbiage from new brochure

7. Opportunities for Engagement
Clinical Inquiries
Published in Journal of Family Practice
Published in American Family Physician
EBP Newsletter
Help Desk Answers
Transforming Practice
Evidence in Perspective
Drug Profile
PEPID Primary Care Plus
Handheld and web-based comprehensive resource

8. General Comments on the Peer Review Concept

9. Peer Reviewer’s Function
Assist the editor in determining whether:
The article is well written
The article presents information clearly
The most relevant studies have been included
The results of the studies are correctly interpreted and applied
The article reaches appropriate conclusions
The article should be published

10. What makes a good peer reviewer?
Clinical expertise on the topic
Experienced in critical appraisal
What if I don’t feel qualified (yet)?
FPIN is a great place to learn this skill
Arrange to work with a mentor experienced with peer review

11. The peer reviewer gets…
A copy of the manuscript.
A “Comments to the Editor” form that is unique to the publisher.
A “Comments to the Author” form that is often little more than a blank piece of paper.
These may be actual paper or an on-line equivalent.

12. General Peer Review Comments for the Editor Comments for the Author
Key concept is to help the editor decide what to do with this particular manuscript.
Comments for the Author
Key concept is to help the author improve the paper…and write better papers in the future.

13. Comments for the Editor
One Paragraph
Is the paper appropriate to journal/audience?
Often includes a checkbox section for you to suggest one:
Accept
Reconsider after revisions
Reject

14. Comments for the Editor
Give very brief overview of major strengths and weaknesses:
Writing quality
Sources of potential bias
Research methods
Valid conclusions

15. Comments for the Author
Make specific comments about each section of the paper. For standard papers, this will be several lines about:
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Tables

16. Comments for the Author
Maintain a CONSTRUCTIVE tone
Be generous with your words to enhance CLARITY
Sprinkle PRAISE along with recommendations for change
May refer to changes made directly to manuscript
(commonly used for spelling, punctuation, and minor sentence structure improvements)
Frequently, an idea or bit of logic will not be clear. Simply ask for an explanation.

17. FPIN’s Tools for Peer Reviewing
FPIN Checklist

18. Peer Reviews of a Clinical Inquiry
The reviewers goal is to improve the paper.
It should be clear, concise and relevant.
Identify possible areas of confusion and make specific suggestions.
Use Track Changes and/or Comments

19. PR Checklist for a CI Question
Is the question posed the one that is answered?
If a change in wording is suggested, the Associate Editor must approve the change

20. PR Checklist for a CI Evidence-Based Answer Checklist Note:
Does it answer the question?
Is the SOR correct?
Is the writing focused?
Checklist Note:
Conclusion is concise and accurate; GORs (if any) assigned appropriately? _____Yes _______ No

21. PR Checklist for a CI Evidence Summary Checklist Note:
Is the research made transparent?
Is there logical flow of ideas?
Does the summary support the answer?
Was outcome data selected and used?
Did the author use EBM statistics (LR, NNT)?
Checklist Note:
Evidence Summary is well-documented; high quality studies used to support conclusions; sample sizes appropriate in studies; GORs assigned appropriately _____Yes ______No

22. PR Checklist for a CI Recommendations from Other Checklist Note:
Were reputable sources used?
Is it clear and concise?
Checklist Note:
Recommendations were from authoritative sources; were recently issued or updated _______Yes ________No

23. PR Checklist for a CI References Checklist Note:
Were any critical papers missed?
Is the bibliography in standard format?
Checklist Note:
References will be checked by the librarian coauthor or a librarian editor for accuracy and format. However, the peer reviewer may point out if key references have not been included.

24. PR Checklist for a CI Tables Is the table clearly labeled?
Is information in the table repeated in the text?
If there is no table, should there be one?

25. Small Group Exercises

26. Small Groups Review a completed PR Checklist
“See One”
Each group reviews a submitted CI and completes the PR Checklist
“Do One”
Discuss what you learned
“Teach One”

27. Discussion Questions: Completed Peer Review
How would you feel if you received this?
Is it courteous?
Is this constructive?
Is it clear?
What do you have questions about after reading it?
Does it help make the evidence more transparent?
Does it help focus the answer?

28. Work on Your Peer Review
Use the Checklist

29. Doing a Peer Review Using The Checklist
Overall impression?
What will you recommend to the editor?
What was it like to use the form?
Section comments:
Evidence-based Answer
Evidence Summary
Recommendations from Others
References

30. How to become involved?

31. Contact the FPIN office
Obtain an FPIN password to view list of questions available for Peer Review
Read the PR instructions
Find a manuscript on a topic of interest to you
Request the manuscript and begin the peer review

32. Want more information?
Contact Heather Stewart, Membership Coordinator at
She can assist you with getting your FPIN user id and password and to discuss how you or your program can become involved.

33. With Gratitude AAFP National Network
The Family Physicians Inquiries Network Consortium would like to extend its deepest gratitude to this distinguished group for their generous support and continued commitment.
AAFP National Network