Asian Journal of Psychiatry 11 (2014) 124–127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Asian Journal of Psychiatry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ajp

Review

How to review a scientific paper Rajiv Tandon * University of Florida, USA

A B S T R A C T

Scientific observations must survive the scrutiny of experts before they are disseminated to the broader community because their publication in a scientific journal provides a stamp of validity. Although critical review of a manuscript by peers prior to publication in a scientific journal is a central element in this process, virtually no formal guidance is provided to reviewers about the nature of the task. In this article, the essence of peer review is described and critical steps in the process are summarized. The role of the peer reviewer as an intermediary and arbiter in the process of scientific communication between the authors and the readers via the vehicle of the particular journal is discussed and the responsibilities of the reviewer to each of the three parties (the author/s, readers, and the Journal editor) are defined. The two formal products of this activity are separate sets of reviewer comments to the editor and the authors and these are described. Ethical aspects of the process are considered and rewards accruing to the reviewer summarized. ß 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Peer review- a brief introduction What does peer-review entail . . . Why be a reviewer . . . . . . . . . . . Should I review this paper . . . . . Steps in reviewing a manuscript. The review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

Manuscript peer review for the purpose of evaluating suitability for publication in a scientific journal is the central element in ensuring the integrity of the process of scientific communication and the accountability of the involved parties- the author, the journal editor and publisher, and the reader. It is based on the premise that any piece of scientific information must pass the scrutiny of experts (peers) before it is presented to the larger scientific community. Even though peer review is central to the scientific process, there are no formal instructional programs and little guidance is provided to reviewers. Reviewing a scientific paper is both an art and a science and reviewers become better at the process through experience and ‘‘trial and error’’. In this paper, I offer some guidelines on how to review a scientific manuscript; my perspective is based on my learning of this role through my

* Corresponding author at: University of Florida, P.O. Box 103424, Gainesville, FL 32610-3424, USA. E-mail address: tandon@ufl.edu http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2014.08.007 1876-2018/ß 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

124 125 126 126 126 126 126 126

over 30 years experience as an author, reviewer, and editor. While instructional resources about the review process are sparse, the following articles, including a resource of this Journal (Elsevier, 2014), are useful (Allen, 2013; Benos et al., 2003; Black et al., 1998; Hoppin, 2002; Larson and Chung, 2012; Onitilo et al., 2014; Provenzale and Stanley, 2005; Szekely et al., 2014; Twaij et al., 2014; Vintzileos and Ananth, 2010). 1. Peer review- a brief introduction The origins of scientific peer review date back to medieval times with the introduction of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665 and the recognition that journal publication grants legitimacy to an author’s work. Because of the fear that a questionable publication might tarnish the Royal Society’s reputation, a system of review by qualified society members was developed (Kronick, 1990). The process of scientific peer review has evolved over the past 350 years (Burnham, 1990) and while its sophistication and magnitude have changed, its basic elements are

R. Tandon / Asian Journal of Psychiatry 11 (2014) 124–127

unchanged. Today, approximately 1.5 million articles are published every year in peer-reviewed scientific journals across the world (Bjork et al., 2009). As peer review continues to be pivotal in the process of scientific publication, its critics have suggested that it should be replaced because it is overly time-consuming, expensive, inconsistent, biased, and outdated (Ioannidis et al., 2010; Jefferson et al., 2007; Kravitz et al., 2010). The increasing frequency of retraction of articles from various scientific journals also suggests that the process may not be working to detect errors and fraud. Despite its many limitations, however, there is currently no alternative to the scientific peer-review process and the endeavor should be to improve its quality. The reviewers are the most important elements in this process. 2. What does peer-review entail While the reviewer of a scientific article serves one obvious master (the Editor who has requested the review), the reviewer also has an enormous responsibility to both the author/s of the manuscript and to the potential readers of the manuscript (specifically, the readers of the Journal for which the review is being conducted). While the general purpose of the review is to ascertain whether the manuscript is appropriate for publication in

125

the particular Journal (based on relevance, quality of science, clarity of writing, significance, suitability for specific Journal), the reviewer has overlapping but distinct obligations to the Editor, the author/s, and the readers. Each Journal editor wants to publish high-quality articles that will have high impact on the field; additionally, they expect the article to be unimpeachable from a scientific and ethical perspective and of interest to the readership of the Journal. The reviewer needs to provide a specific recommendation to the Editor in this regard- this is done via a summary and specific recommendation (accept, minor revision, reconsider after major revisions, reject) in confidential comments to the Editor. The authors expect a fair review of their manuscript and clear guidance about how it can be improved to be of greater utility to their real audience- the readers. Here, the reviewer needs to provide a clear and constructive critique of the manuscript (strengths, weaknesses, comments on its different componentstitle, abstract, materials/methods, results, conclusions, tables and figures, references) and very specific recommendations about how it can/needs to be improved. A good principle is to treat the manuscript exactly the same way that one wants one’s own manuscript treated- confidentially, respectfully, and carefully. The readers expect an easy-to-read manuscript that conveys important and relevant information. The reviewer should ensure

Table 1 Check-list of peer-review items. Component

Questions

1. Overall

(a) Importance of the central question (what important gap in the existing literature does the paper seek to fill?) (b) Originality of the work. (c) Quality of the work. (d) Ethical concerns, if any. (e) Writing style and manuscript flow.

2. Title

(a) Is it specific and does it reflect the content of the manuscript?

3. Abstract

(a) Does it meet the word limits of the Journal? (b) Does it appropriately summarize the manuscript? (c) Are there discrepancies between the abstract and the remainder of the manuscript? (d) Can the abstract be understood without reading the remainder of the manuscript? (e) Whether structured or unstructured (should meet Journal guidelines), does it have information about the following 4 elements

4. Introduction

(a) Is it concise? (b) Is the purpose of the study clearly laid out? (c) Is a rationale for the study provided on the basis of a succinct review of the literature (‘‘what gap in the existing literature does this study seeking to address’’)? (d) Are ‘‘unusual’’ or idiosyncratic terms defined? (e) What is the specific hypothesis being tested?

5. Materials and methods

(a) Is the type of study design specified? (b) Is there a statement of Institutional Review Board review, approval and the informed consent process? (c) Are the methods clearly described in terms of inclusion/exclusion criteria, procedures or tests used, measurements utilized, primary and secondary outcomes or independent and dependent variables, statistical analysis utilized? The methods should be stated in a way that would allow another investigator to precisely reproduce the study. (d) If the authors have stated a hypothesis, are the designed methods appropriate to reasonably test the hypothesis?

6. Results, tables, and figures

(a) Are the results clearly explained? (b) Does the order of presentation of the results parallel the order of presentation of the methods? (c) Are the tables, figures, and graphs appropriate and adequate? (d) Are the tables and figures appropriately labeled or titled and do they meaningfully add to the text?

7. Discussion

(a) Is the discussion concise and clear? (b) Is there a clear statement about the principal study findings? (c) Is it clear what new knowledge the study has provided? (d) Is it clear how the study findings ‘‘fit’’ or ‘‘don’t fit’’ with the existing literature? (e) How are discrepant findings explained? (f) Are the strengths and weaknesses of the study noted? (g) Is there a clear and concise conclusion about the implications of the study and next steps, if appropriate? (h) Do the study conclusions clearly flow from the results and are NOT overstated or otherwise inappropriately stated?

8. References

(a) Does the reference list follow the Journal format? (b) Does the reference list contain errors? (c) Are important relevant references all included? Are there major omissions? (d) Are salient points of cited articles accurately quoted? (e) Are there more references than necessary?

126

R. Tandon / Asian Journal of Psychiatry 11 (2014) 124–127

that the manuscript has a clear and succinct organization that flows well.

3. Why be a reviewer There are no formal qualifications to becoming a reviewer. The Editor of a Journal chooses the referees for a submitted manuscript based on some characteristics, principally knowledge of the potential reviewer’s expertise and competence and prior experience, if any, with the reviewer. Given the importance of peerreview and the need for experience to hone reviewing skills, it is ironic that seasoned reviewers often profess not to have time for the process whereas junior assessors do not have the experience. At all stages of one’s career, however, peer review is of great value. While the personal benefits of reviewing manuscripts may not be obvious, it enables the reviewer to keep abreast of cutting-edge research in one’s field of study and facilitates the sharpening of critical reading and thinking skills. It also provides the reviewer with an important tool to influence the field at large. Peer-review should be considered a civic responsibility that is critical to the integrity of the scientific process.

6. The review The actual review consists of two parts- a confidential cover letter or comments to the Editor with specific recommendation about acceptance/rejection/revisions/etc. and the anonymous referee’s comments to the authors. In the confidential comments to the Editor, one can supply any relevant information about one’s review process (expertise, time spent, assistance obtained, potential conflict or bias, etc.) and one should provide clear and specific opinions about the importance and quality of the manuscript and its suitability for publication in the particular Journal. Although the Editor will read the reviewer’s comments to the authors, a brief summary with specific criticisms, questions, and recommendations here is of great value. Any concerns about duplicate publication, suspected fraud or plagiarism, and ethical issues should be noted here. The comments to the authors should include a summary (which should be dispassionate and indicate how you understood the paper), a general overview, and specific comments about strengths and weaknesses, and recommendations for improvement. The reviewer should specifically comment on the flow and readability of the manuscript. Each question or criticism should be clearly explained to the authors. These comments should be clear, respectful, and not personalized.

4. Should I review this paper When one is invited by an Editor to review a particular manuscript, the first decision to be made is whether or not to accept the task. That decision should be based on the following considerations: (i) do I have the expertise to review the particular article; (ii) is there a potential conflict of interest (real or even in perception) that may interfere with my ability to review the manuscript in an unbiased manner. If there is a doubt in this regard, relevant information can be provided to the Editor to make that determination; (iii) can I review the manuscript in a timely manner; (iv) am I committed to conducting a thorough review.

5. Steps in reviewing a manuscript Most reviewers (including this one) do a rapid initial reading of the manuscript before a more in-depth study. The purpose of this initial perusal is to get a feel for the article(i) specific nature of the manuscript (to what section-original research, review, case report, etc.- does it belong), (ii) its potential relevance (what questions were the authors intending to study, what gaps in the existing literature might this information address), (iii) its quality (approach, methods), (iv) its clarity (readability, flow), and (v) relevance to Journal objectives and readership. After the initial reading, a more detailed review of each section of the manuscript is undertaken. As the questions relevant to each section are addressed (Table 1), the actual report (comments to the authors and confidential comments to the editors) is developed and submitted to the Editor. It should be noted that the process of reviewing a manuscript has several parallels to elements of both submitting a manuscript for publication and reading a manuscript; these topics have been reviewed earlier in the Journal (Clark et al., 2011; Haj-Ibrahim and Tandon, 2011; Keshavan, 2011; Rankupalli and Tandon, 2010).

7. In summary Reviewing a scientific manuscript is both a privilege and a responsibility. All reviews should be conducted in a diligent and conscientious manner and the reviewer needs to allocate necessary time and attention to the task. It should be understood that the content of a manuscript belongs to the authors until it is published and that the reviewer must maintain strict confidentiality and not utilize any of the ideas contained in it to further their own work. Trust is the foundation of the peer review process. While the reviewer derives some direct benefits as a result of this effort in the form of access to the latest in cutting-edge research and honing of critical thinking, etc., the greater gain is in terms of contributing to the shaping of one’s field of study and to good science at large. It should be recognized that peer review is the basis of scientific publishing and the quality and integrity of the process depends on the commitment of the reviewers. Having had the privilege of reviewing almost 1000 scientific manuscripts over the course of my career, it is a task that I continue to embrace with respect and humility. I recognize my dual roles are to facilitate communication between authors of a manuscript and its readers and to assist the Journal editor in determining the publicationworthiness of the manuscript. When I review a manuscript, I follow the golden rule- review each paper as I would want my own submission reviewed. References Allen, T.W., 2013. Peer review guidance: how do you write a good review? J. Am. Osteopath. Assoc. 113, 916–920. Benos, D.J., Kirk, K.L., Hall, J.E., 2003. How to review a paper. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 27, 47–52. Bjork, B.-C., Roos, A., Lauri, M., 2009. Scientific journal publishing: yearly volume and open access availability. Inf. Res. 14–1, 391. Black, N., van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Smith, R., Evans, S., 1998. What makes a good reviewer. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280, 231–233. Burnham, J.C., 1990. The evolution of editorial peer review. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 263, 1323–1329. Clark, A., Rankupalli, B., Tandon, R., 2011. Practicing evidence-based psychiatry. 3. Interpreting treatment guidelines. Asian J. Psychiatry 4, 304–308. Elsevier. Reviewer guidelines. http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/reviewerguidelines (accessed 16.08.14). Haj-Ibrahim, J., Tandon, R., 2011. Practicing evidence-based psychiatry. 2. Interpreting integrative literature. Asian J. Psychiatry 4, 80–85.

R. Tandon / Asian Journal of Psychiatry 11 (2014) 124–127 Hoppin, F.G., 2002. How I review an original scientific article. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 166, 1019–1023. Ioannidis, J.P., Tatsioni, A., Karassa, F.B., 2010. Who is afraid of reviewers. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 40, 285–287. Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney, F.S., Davidoff, F., 2007. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2, MR000016. Keshavan, M.S., 2011. How you can get your psychiatry scientific paper accepted. Asian J. Psychiatry 4, 216–217. Kravitz, R.L., Franks, P., Feldman, M.D., et al., 2010. Editorial peer reviewers’ recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS ONE 5 (4), e10072. Kronick, D.A., 1990. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 263, 1321–1322.

127

Larson, B.P., Chung, K.C., 2012. A systematic review of peer review for scientific manuscripts. Hand 7, 37–44. Onitilo, A.A., Engel, J.M., Salzman-Scott, S.A., Stankowski, R.V., Doi, S.A., 2014. A coreitem reviewer evaluation (CoRE) system for manuscript peer review. Acc. Res. 21, 109–121. Provenzale, J.M., Stanley, R.J., 2005. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. Am. J. Roentgenol. 185, 1–7. Rankupalli, B., Tandon, R., 2010. Practicing evidence-based psychiatry.1. Applying a study’s findings. Asian J. Psychiatry 3, 35–40. Szekely, T., Kruger, O., Krause, E.T., 2014. Errors in science: the role of reviewers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 371–373. Twaij, H., Oussedik, S., Hoffmeyer, P., 2014. Peer review. Bone Joint J. 96-B, 436–441. Vintzileos, A.M., Ananth, C.V., 2010. The art of peer-reviewing an original research paper. J. Ultrasound Med. 29, 513–518.

How to review a scientific paper.

Scientific observations must survive the scrutiny of experts before they are disseminated to the broader community because their publication in a scie...
242KB Sizes 0 Downloads 4 Views