For both reviewers and authors of medical research

1. REVIEWING AN ARTICLE:WHAT DO
REVIEWERS LOOK FOR IN AN
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE?
Dr.Ahmed Elshebiny, MD
Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine,
Diabetes and Endocrinology,KFU, KSA
Lecturer, Internal Medicine, Menoufia university , Egypt
Former Clinical Research Fellow,Joslin Diabetes Center, USA

2. REVIEWING
A RESEARCH ARTICLE
75% of journal editors say “Finding reviewers and getting them to accept review
invitations' is the hardest part of their job”
The editors may not be experts in the field.They need reviewers because of their
specialized knowledge and technical expertise.They do not need a reviewer to be
a copy editor.
Accept reviewing an article only when you are competent, you have sufficient
time, and you don’t have an undeclared conflict of interest
There are different types of peer review e.g., anonymous , open, published, signed,
pre-publication and post-publication.
Peer reviewers are evaluated by editors.There is a growing tendency for
rewarding and crediting the peer reviewers with development of reviewer indices
and appearance of peer reviews along with publications on researcher profiles.
As an author if you are aware of good practice of writing the original research ,
what do reviewers look for , so you will avoid vast number of flaws in your paper
and improve its acceptance.
Peer review video

3. THE FIRST PART:
AN EFFECTIVE PEER REVIEW
(FROMTHE REVIEWER/EDITOR SIDE)
 The peer review as a part of the editorial process.
 Why peer review is important for research publications?
 What are the different types of peer review?
 What editors look for in a reviewer?
 What are the tasks for a peer reviewer?
 What peer reviewers do not do?
 What are the ethics of peer reviewing?
 Who owns the peer review?
 How to submit an effective peer review report?
 How are peer reviewers credited or recognized for their time and expertise?

4. THE EDITORIAL
PROCESS
 Author Submission
 Editor screening
 Selection of peer reviewers
 Sending to peer reviewers
 Reviewer report submission
 Editorial Decision

5. GOALS OFTHE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
✓ Uphold academic and editorial standards
✓ Sharpen submissions to the highest quality
✓ Foster author relationships

6. PEER REVIEW PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
 Peer review is a relatively recent
innovation in the history of scientific
publication.
 The first journal (which is still in print)
was launched in 1665 by the Royal
Society in London, (Phil Trans R Soc B).
 For Watson and Crick Paper that was
submitted to Nature, The journal
editors complied and a subsequent
editor of Nature, John
Maddox, wrote that “the Crick and
Watson paper could not have been
refereed: its correctness is self-
evident.

7. DIFFERENTTYPES OF PEER REVIEW
Blind or open
• Single blinded
• Double blinded
• Open peer review
Pre or post
publication
• Pre-publication
• Post- publication
Published or
unpublished reviews
• Unpublished
• Published with the
article

8. HOW EDITORS FIND AND SCREEN REVIEWERS?
Sources editors use to find reviewers:
• Publisher database of authors and prior reviewers
• Reviewer search tool
• Editor's researcher network of contacts
• Reviewer suggestions by the authors/declining reviewers
• Online search to find new reviewers
How are reviewers screened by the editor?
What is the Reviewer score?

9. TIPS FOR STARTING REVIEWERS
✓ Update your public profile
✓ Read the most updated research in your field
✓ Continue and improve your research and publications
✓ Update your research profiles and get a personal identifier as
✓ ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor IDentifier)
✓ Find a mentor and let him know that you are interested in peer review
✓ Attend conferences
✓ Get involved in open peer review (e.g., F1000 Research), join preprint discussions on bioRxiv or PREreview, or
add post-publication article comments on journal websites.

10. WHEN RECEIVING AN INVITATION FOR PEER REVIEW…..
➢ Check the title, abstract and the deadline
➢ Do you have the knowledge to review this article and submit your review within the
deadline?
➢ Respond by yes or no immediately
➢ Check and declare conflicts of interest
➢ Suggest replacement reviewers if you are not available this time

11. THE PEER REVIEWER CRITIQUE
Identify positive
aspects
Identify negative
aspects
constructively
Indicate
improvements
needed
Explain and
support your
judgement clearly
Recommend
a decision

12. PEER REVIEW
TEMPLATE

13. REPORTING
THE PEER
REVIEW

14. HOW EDITORSVALUE PEER REVIEWERS?
➢ Meeting deadlines
➢ Providing constructive feedback
➢ Communicating clearly
➢ Reliability

15. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF PEER REVIEW
Confidentiality Competence
Constructive
critique
Disclosure of
conflict of
interest
Impartiality and
integrity
Timeliness and
responsiveness.

16. COMPETING INTERESTS FOR REVIEWERS
Examples of cases with competing interest:
 Reviewer recommends rejection, then submits a manuscript
to the same journal on the same topic.
 Reviewer recommends rejection and turns out to have a
patent on a method challenged by the submitted research,
which was not disclosed during the review process.
Financial Personal
Professional

17. EXAMPLES OF REVIEWER IMPROPRIETY?
 Accepting to review a manuscript without meeting the requisite expertise
 Breaching the confidentiality
 Use of ideas or text from the manuscript
 Unfair criticism
 Failure to disclose conflict of interest

18. WHO OWNSTHE PEER REVIEW?
 Under copyright law, most reviews would be considered to meet the requirements
for an “original work of authorship”, and therefore, the reviewer holds copyright,
unless they expressly transfer copyright by written agreement to the publisher.
 Authors must be consulted about publication of peer review reports of their
manuscripts.

19. HOW ARE PEER REVIEWERS CREDITED OR RECOGNIZED FORTHEIR
TIME AND EXPERTISE?

20. ADDING SUBMITTED PEER REVIEWS TOYOUR
RESEARCHER PROFILE IN THE WEB OF SCIENCES

21. THE SECOND PART:
A WELL-PRESENTED RESEARCH ARTICLE ( AUTHOR SIDE)
 What do reviewers look for in an original research article?
 How to avoid common flaws in your article?
 Tips for a well-presented research article
 How to communicate with peer reviewers and respond to their comments?

22. WHAT DO REVIEWERS LOOK FOR IN AN ORIGINAL RESEARCH
ARTICLE?
Originality
and Novelty
Quality of
writing
Relevance to
the reader
Scientific
merit
Practical
benefits

23. TIPS FOR A
WELL-
PRESENTED
RESEARCH
ARTICLE
 Decide early on the target Journal(s)
 Be concise
 Use active voice
 Avoid jargon
 Avoid direct copying from other papers
 Ensure coherence of different sections
 Keep editing and improving
 Ask the coauthors or other peers to review/edit the paper
 Get a paid copy editing if feasible
 Use precise and adequate references
 Stick to the journal guidelines

24. THETITLE
 Concise, short , informative, attractive
 Clearly reflect the content
 Accurate
 Some journals prefer double barreled titles( What has been
done: Method)
 The title should inform about the study’s design , content of
the paper and the main finding
 Articles with short titles are more downloaded and cited
 Articles with colons are less downloaded and cited

25. ABSTRACT
AND
CONCLUSION
Do the authors summarize in their abstract the main
research question and key findings?
➢ The abstract is factual, concise and summarized part
➢ Mini-version of the paper
➢ The last part to be written
➢ The first part to be read by readers
➢ May be structured or unstructured
Keywords:
It is recommended to select keywords from the MeSH
database of NLM (3-6 keywords)
Conclusion:
➢ Should be based on the results and answer the study aim
➢ A common error is to draw conclusions beyond the results
➢ It should also provide directions for future research

26. INTRODUCTION
Do the authors identify other literature on the topic
and explain how the study relates to this previously
published research?
 Define the existing knowledge gap and how this study
address this gap
 Cite recent work in the topic
 Cite from your country or region if available
 Use a clear language with a well-defined sequence
 It is usually the first part of the manuscript examined by the
reviewer
 Usually written after the methods and the results.
 End with the objective of the study

27. METHODS
SECTION
 Is often the first part to be written in the paper
 Should be written in the past tense
 Include the time of the study
 Subjects/Material
 Details of the methods used
 Ethical considerations
 Statistical methods
 If the Journal allows the use of subheadings( Study design,
ethical considerations, sampling and details of the research tool,
its validation in addition to data collection and statistical
methods)
 Should be reproducible so as any researcher wants to repeat
the research will find details of the method.

28. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results
• Results are written in the past tense in a
logical sequence
• Use exact p-values and the confidence
intervals
• Results are either described in the text, tables
or figure (Avoid replication)
Discussion
Should discuss the following:
• Interpretation of the results
• Explain the implications of the findings
• Comparison of the results with the literature
• Generalizability of results
• Study limitations discussed
• Make suggestions for future research

29. TABLES,
GRAPHS AND
REFERENCES
Tables and Graphs
 Are the figures and tables clear and readable?
 Are the figure and table captions complete and accurate?
 Are the axes labelled correctly?
 Is the presentation appropriate for the type of data being
presented?
 Do the figures and tables support the findings?
References:
 Cite the origins as far as possible
 Ensure all references are cited in the text
 Stick to the journal guidelines
 Use a bibliographic management software if feasible

30. HOWTO
COMMUNICATE
WITH PEER
REVIEWERS AND
RESPONDTO
THEIR
COMMENTS?
Completely
Politely
With evidence

31. RESOURCES AND LINKS:
 Web of Science Academy (clarivate.com)
 Journal Reviewers | Wiley
 2.3 Reviewer Roles and Responsibilities - Council of Science Editors (councilscienceeditors.org)
 How to Read a Manuscript as a Peer Reviewer – PLOS
 Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (English) | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics
 Who 'owns' peer reviews? September 2017 | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics
 ICMJE | Recommendations | Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process
 Critical Tips on How to Respond to Peer Reviewers - PMC (nih.gov)

32. TAKE HOME
MESSAGE