Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

of

Reviewing for JSES Slide 1 Reviewing for JSES Slide 2 Reviewing for JSES Slide 3 Reviewing for JSES Slide 4 Reviewing for JSES Slide 5 Reviewing for JSES Slide 6 Reviewing for JSES Slide 7 Reviewing for JSES Slide 8 Reviewing for JSES Slide 9 Reviewing for JSES Slide 10 Reviewing for JSES Slide 11 Reviewing for JSES Slide 12 Reviewing for JSES Slide 13 Reviewing for JSES Slide 14 Reviewing for JSES Slide 15 Reviewing for JSES Slide 16 Reviewing for JSES Slide 17 Reviewing for JSES Slide 18
Upcoming SlideShare
What to Upload to SlideShare
Next
Download to read offline and view in fullscreen.

0 Likes

Share

Download to read offline

Reviewing for JSES

Download to read offline

Slides from a talk at the ASES Annual Meeting on how to become a good reviewer for JSES, or any orthopaedic journal.

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to like this

Reviewing for JSES

  1. 1. REVIEWING FOR JSES – OR OTHER MEDICAL JOURNALS Bill Mallon MD Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (JSES) (2008-)
  2. 2. JSES REVIEWER ALL-STAR TEAM • Phillip Hansen • Steven Hattrup • Jesse Jupiter • Scott Kaar • Jonathan Levy • Peter McCann • Michael Moskal • Wesley Nottage • David Ring • Scott Rodeo • Matthew Saltzman • John Sperling • Quin Throckmorton • James Tibone • Stephen Weber • Jeffrey Abrams • Samuel Antuna • Keith Baumgarten • Kamal Bohsali • Caroline Chebli • Sean Churchill • Akin Cil • Robert Cofield • Lieven de Wilde • Nathan Everding • Paul Favorito • Edward Fehringer • Mark Frankle • Steve Gunther • Kazutoshi Hamada
  3. 3. GEORGE BURNS, JOHN FEAGIN, OKISE • George Burns on how to be a good actor – “If the script says ‘Open the door and walk in the room,’ and you open the door and walk in the room – you’re a good actor. If you don’t, you’re not.” • John Feagin – “Find one society that most interests you, that fits what you want to do in medicine – and focus on that society. Don’t try to be in every society or try to be a leader in all of them. In that society, when they want you to do something, say yes.” • OKISE and Kim Tuck – my answer to Kim when they wanted me to see a patient was “OKISE” = “OK, I’ll see ‘em” It didn’t matter if it was a back, a diabetic foot, or whatever, I would see it.
  4. 4. REVIEWING FOR JSES • To be a good reviewer – the most important thing to do is say “YES” and then do the review. Like George Burns, that will usually make you a good reviewer. • You will be tempted to say “I’m too busy” – look around the room, tell me somebody who does not think they are busy? • You will be tempted to say “Its not in my area of expertise.” You’re in ASES – you’re an elite member of a sub-specialty society – you know shoulder and elbow surgery or you would not have been selected. I assume you know how to review a paper – so do it – say “YES” • OKIRE – “OK, I’ll review it.” • “Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell ‘em, ‘Certainly I can.’” – Teddy Roosevelt
  5. 5. MY RESPONSIBILITIES • I will not overburden you. We know how many papers people have reviewed. • I understand when people have new responsibilities – department chairs, society leaders (Gerry Williams), fall sports team coverage, etc. • I will try not to get you out of your comfort zone. We know if you have written on topics before or not. • However, my main responsibility as journal editor, is to publish a monthly journal, and get reviews done, and make decisions on articles submitted so … • I will ask you to review papers and articles – I will do my best to be fair
  6. 6. BUSY TIMES • I know that there are busy times for reviewers • From my experience – there are 12 months of the year that seem to be particularly busy for ASES Members • I will ask you to review during those 12 months • But if you let me know if you’re having problems – health, new responsibilities, family matters – your health, your career, your family always comes first – and I will understand and back off.
  7. 7. HOW WE REVIEW PAPERS • I get each paper and select an Associate Editor and one reviewer, usually North American • Pierre Mansat (Deputy International Editor) selects an International reviewer – this is done to decrease bias • Reviewers are asked to read the paper, make comments, queries, and suggestions about it, and make a preliminary decision and rating • The Associate Editor takes the 2 reviews, and his/her own reading of the paper, and makes their own preliminary decision, which is sent to me • I then make the final decision – but I rarely (very rarely) change the decision of the Associate Editor
  8. 8. REVIEWERS’ DECISIONS • We ask you make only three decisions – Reject, Revise, Accept • DO NOT USE – this seems to be hard to understand, but this means – DO NOT USE • Accept – very rarely chosen – it needs to be a special paper • Reject – the most common decision for JSES – our acceptance rate is only about 25% at the moment • Revise – the paper is good, but we see ways it can be improved, or note problems with it that can be fixed – again, this should be chosen about 25% of the time • Ratings – rate the paper as in the EES system – Top 10%, Top 25%, Top 50%, Bottom 50%
  9. 9. JERRY TARDE AND DICK TAYLOR • Editors of Golf Digest and Golf World – old friends who helped me learn some things about editing • “Don’t over edit – it makes it your paper, not the authors, and it makes you no friends. If the article needs that much editing, reject it.” • DO NOT be derogatory in your reviews. These people are your colleagues. You have all done papers – you know how hard it is, and how much work is put into it. Respect that. • So make your suggestions, queries and comments – but if it needs so much work that it is basically going to be re-written – choose “Reject”
  10. 10. WHAT TO LOOK FOR • Introduction – it should not be too long. It should not summarize all the world’s literature on the topic. It should simply introduce why the authors chose to do this study – nothing more, nothing less. • Materials and Methods – most important part of the paper. Is the study well- designed? Ideally, it should state its basic design at the outset “This was a retrospective, case-control study.” The authors should not make you try to figure it out. • Follow-up – is there adequate follow-up? We ask for 2 years minimum for clinical papers but violate this all the time and realize it is not necessary in many problems – e.g., clavicle fractures. Many times not even mentioned.
  11. 11. WHAT TO LOOK FOR • M/M – are the authors comparing apples and oranges? Do they tell us what the inclusion and exclusion criteria are? • Is there some obvious bias? This is supposed to be revealed up front, but sometimes more can be found in the M/M. Is the study looking at something the authors designed – such as an outcome instrument, or a surgery they pioneered. That will not be listed under Disclaimers, but it is bias nonetheless. • Statistics – we have a statistical editor (Deanne Dilley) but she only reviews papers selected for her. I look at this myself carefully, and if I don’t understand the stats, I ask her to look at it. But you can suggest that this should be reviewed by the statistical editor.
  12. 12. WHAT TO LOOK FOR • Results – how are they presented? Train wreck paper as a Duke resident. If there are too many stats, and they simply ramble on and on, they should be summarized in Table or Chart formats. You can suggest this if they are rambling. • Do the results contain all the pertinent information you are looking for in this study? If not, can it be rescued by providing more details of the study. If you have to suggest they go back and re-do parts of the study with more subjects or something like that, it should be rejected. We can’t ask authors to re-do studies. Reject, recommend re-doing the study, and re-submit as a new paper. We’re only evaluating the studies they present to us, not some vague possibility.
  13. 13. WHAT TO LOOK FOR • Relevance – is the topic meaningful or important? “There’s a reason nobody has looked at this topic before … Nobody cares!” • Writing Style – is this important? Yes, it is, to a degree. The science is more important, but a poorly written paper suggests sloppiness or that the authors did not pay attention to this. That gets demerits, and makes you wonder about how careful they were in general. • English Grammar/Syntax – do we penalize this? We try not to, and we understand that many of our international authors do not have English as a primary language, but … if it is so poorly written that you cannot understand it, you should reject and suggest they re-write it with help from a primary English language speaker, or an editing service, and then re-submit it.
  14. 14. WHAT TO LOOK FOR • Discussion – should not be too long – “A River Runs Thru It” – half again as long. Be on the look-out for resident written papers. They usually start out “Neer described 3 phases of impingement syndrome.” JSES is a sub-specialty journal – our readers know that. • Conclusion – the biggest problem authors make is making sweeping conclusions from their study. The conclusion should only state what they showed. Very few papers in JSES will end up curing cancer, ending world hunger, or solving global warming. Very few orthopaedists win Nobel Prizes, but many article conclusions make grandiose claims about the utility of their article. Beware of this.
  15. 15. WHAT YOUR REVIEW LOOKS LIKE • 1) A general statement – what’s good, what’s bad, what you basically think of it, and state your conclusion • 2) A line-by-line list of comments, as in “Line 17 – why did you decide to include Worker’s Compensation patients in your article on pediatric supracondylar fractures?” • 3) A decision – Reject, Revise, Accept (do not use – DO NOT USE) • 4) A rating – Top 10%, Top 25%, Top 50%, Bottom 50% • Remember, our acceptance rate is about 25%. If you select Revise, the paper should be in the Top 25% - or sometimes in the Top 50%. The rare selection of Accept should be in the Top 10%.
  16. 16. SUMMARY • You will be asked to review for JSES • It is a responsibility of membership in ASES • Reviewing status is being monitored and rated, and your reviewing record may be considered in advancement to Associate status, or Active Member status. • It may seem onerous – but it can be fun, and it should be educational. I try never to overburden you, but reviewing occasional papers keeps you on the cutting edge. It sharpens your own mind, to read a paper critically, and really see what is good and what is bad in it.
  17. 17. THANK YOU • Thank you for reviewing for JSES. It is appreciated far more than you will ever know. • Without reviewers, there are no orthopaedic or medical journals. • Your job is crucial • And we greatly appreciate it.

Slides from a talk at the ASES Annual Meeting on how to become a good reviewer for JSES, or any orthopaedic journal.

Views

Total views

59

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

0

Actions

Downloads

0

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×