Evolution and Validation 0f Practice Standards, Training, and Professional Development
Getting on the list of potential reviewers
Publishing in the journal
Being recommended by a peer to the editor
Being a recognized expert (nationally, internationally) in a relevant field
| d. | Publishing in the field in peer journals |
|---|
Volunteering through the journalβs website or a general call for reviewers β Not an option for all
journals
Review process
Invitation
Normally sent by e-mail with a response link
ii.
Includes an abstract of the paper and often identifies the authors and institution
iii.
Deadline for submission of review is provided so that reviewer can gauge availability of time.
iv.
Usually a short timeline to respond to invitation
If decline, most journals ask for recommendation of a peer to review (building their reviewer
database)
vi.
Once accepted, online access to content is provided (manuscript, review form, instructions to
reviewers, etc.).
Tips for the review
Biomedical literature review skills are beyond the scope of this chapter.
ii.
Review is expected to focus on scientific quality and importance of the paper.
iii.
Grammar, sentence structure, and word choices are normally better handled by the copyeditors
because of their greater expertise, unless it is critical to the scientific meaning of the paper.
iv.
Connect the dots to find common errors (original research and systematic reviews).
| (a) | Objective/purpose and conclusions must match. |
|---|---|
| (b) | Methods must be directly related to the objective/purpose. |
| (c) | Methods must be valid, widely accepted, and/or state of the art, including statistical |
handling of the data.
| (d) | Widely accepted guidelines according to study design should be complied with (e.g., |
|---|
CONSORT [randomized controlled trial], STROBE [observational studies], PRISMA
[systematic review], STARD [diagnostic accuracy studies]).
| (e) | Every method described must have results reported. |
|---|---|
| (f) | Every result reported has to be tied to a method description. |
| (g) | Conclusions must be limited to and supported by the study results. |
| (h) | A fair and complete discussion of study weaknesses must be presented. |
Recommendation to editor
Reason for rejection
| (a) | Fatal flaw β No amount of rewriting or reanalysis of the data will make it worthy of |
|---|
publication β Poor-quality research or serious errors in methods
| (b) | Extent of revision required is so extensive that it is equivalent to starting over |
|---|---|
| (c) | Valid research that is not important, either because of lack of relevance to the target journal |
or because manuscript is reporting a well-known finding with no new information
| (d) | Republication of all or an extensive portion of the content (may be justifiable [e.g., portions |
|---|
of the methods section when it is a legitimate secondary publication of a previously
published study])
| (e) | Serious ethical violations |
|---|
ii.
Revision (minor or major revision)
| (a) | Usually for publications believed to have adequate quality and importance, but there are |
|---|
weaknesses that need to be corrected or addressed