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

3. Peer review goal

5. 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.

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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?

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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?

14. 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?

15. 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?

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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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 

22. 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

23. 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 

24. Simple checklist for reviewers

25. 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?)

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

27. 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?

28. 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?

29. 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?

30. 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?

31. 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?

32. 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.”?

33. 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?

34. 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?

35. 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?

36. 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

37. Final suggestion

38. Let’s NOT suppose this kind of peer review!