Evaluating articles as a reviewer

1. Evaluating Articles as a
Reviewer
Dr Amit Agrawal, MCh
India

2. Peer review: Overview To assess the validity, quality and originality of submitted articles in a
scholarly journal

3. Aims of the peer review (Hames,
2008)
 To prevent the publication of bad work
 To identify that the research reported is well done in terms
of sound design and methodology
 To ensure correct reporting with referencing and
acknowledgment of existing work
 To ensure that results are interpreted appropriately and
comprehensive
 To facilitate editors in making decision about accepting or
rejecting a paper by providing evidence

4. Principles of Peer Review
 Prompt
 Objective
 Transparent
 Accountable
 Generous
 Confidential
 Help to improve work
 Contribute to facilitate Editorial Decisions
 Acknowledgement of Sources
 Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

5.  Carefully read journal guidelines
 Determine types of paper
 Research articles
 Reviews
 Letters
 Comments/
Replies
 Discussion
 Errata
 Conference proceedings

6. Check for Structure
 Title page
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials & Methods
 Results and
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 Figures
 Figure Legends
 Tables

7. Evaluate Manuscript
 Novelty
 The message
 English (Language): Grammar, punctuation, spelling,
terminology

8. Title
 Concise, accurate and informative

9. Abstract
 Structured versus unstructured
 Concise “standalone” accurate and clear message of the full
text of the paper

10. Introduction
 Important details of the topic with brief overview of the
controversies and the available evidence
 Details of research question and how we are going to
answer the same

11. Methods: Quantitative Studies
 Sufficient detail of procedures:
 Design of the study
 Sample size
 Intervention
 Outcomes Measures
 Data Analysis strategy
 Ethical statement
 Informed consent
 Details of IRB approval

12. Design
 Observational versus interventional?
 Prospective versus retrospective?
 Controlled versus uncontrolled?
 If controlled, randomized versus not?

13. How Did You Select Samples?
 Sample size
 Recruiting participants
 Representative of samples
 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

14. Intervention and Outcome Measures
 Describe the intervention details
 Primary and secondary outcomes
 Details of recording of outcomes with accuracy

15. Data Analysis
What statistical methods did you use to analyze your data?

16. Informed consent
Institutional review board approval
IRB approval from DEC countries needed as well
Ethical Considerations
Studies involving human participants must include IRB approval information and proof that
participants gave their written informed consent to be entered in the trial.
Paper will be held up from review if ethical considerations are not sufficiently described.

17. Figures and Tables
 Figures and tables should be entirely understandable on
their own
 Each figure or table should have one stand-alone message
 Don’t overload figures or tables with numbers or text

18. Results
 Should be ordered around primary and secondary outcomes
in the same order as listed in the Methods section
 State clearly and simply what you found using words and
numbers
 Use tables and figures for the main numbers
 Don’t duplicate information in text and tables
 The Facts and Nothing But the Facts

19. Discussion
 Start the discussion with a single sentence describing main
findings
 Don’t write an expansive essay
 Discuss both strengths and weaknesses

20. References
 Relevant
 Accurate
 Appropriate
 Follow journal’s style

21. Other details
 Acknowledgements
 Author contributions (who did what)
 Competing interests
 Funding/disclosures
 Statement regarding ethics committee approval
 Appendices
 Supplementary material

22. Writing recommendations
 The First Paragraph should state the main question
addressed
 Show the key messages
 The Second Paragraph should provide a conceptual
overview of the contribution of the research
 Identified Concern: Major Issues versus Minor Issues

23. Confidential Comments to Editors
 Suspected plagiarism
 Fraud
 Unattributed work
 Unethical procedures
 Duplicate publication
 Needs spirit of fairness and should not 'backstab' the
authors

24. Reviewer recommendations
Reviewer recommendations
• Accepted as is
• Requires further revisions
• Referred to another journal
• Rejected
Peer review comments should help produce a better manuscript
Editor makes decision after peer review

25. Summary
 Whether work is in the scope of journal?
 Whether the study contributes significantly?
 Does the sections are appropriate (title, abstract, keywords
etc.)?
 Message is communicated in clear and logical manner?

26. Conclusion
 Referees try to help to improve the research work
 Briefly summarize observations and communicate positive
feedback first
 Try to provide relevant feedback based on existing literature
and current knowledge
 Provide overview of strengths, quality, completeness or any
major flaws or weaknesses of the study
 In spite of a good peer review few articles may still contain
inaccuracies