How to write an effective review (and help editors and authors)

•Download as PPTX, PDF•

0 likes•125 views

This document provides guidance for writing effective peer reviews that can help editors and authors. It emphasizes that reviewing is an important scientific duty and responsibility shared between editors and reviewers. The document outlines steps reviewers should take, including diagnosing issues with the manuscript, providing treatment by suggesting ways to improve the manuscript through revisions, and drafting a review report that clearly communicates the diagnosis and suggested revisions. It advises reviewers to avoid being rude or imposing unnecessary demands and instead focus on providing constructive feedback to strengthen the manuscript.

How to write an effective review (and help
editors and authors)
Rik Lories, MD PhD – Associate Editor OAC
Skeletal Biology and Engineering Research Centre, KU Leuven
Division of Rheumatology, University Hospitals Leuven

Rik Lories, MD PhD
Professor of Experimental Rheumatology
Director of the Laboratory of Tissue Homeostasis and Disease
KU Leuven, Skeletal Biology and Engineering Research Centre and University
Hospitals Leuven, Division of Rheumatology
Disclosure Information
• Leuven Research and Development, the technology transfer office of KU Leuven
has received consultancy and speakers fees, and research grants on behalf of the
presenter from: Abbvie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos,
Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samumed and UCB
AND
My presentation does not include discussion of off-label or investigational use.

TRIAGE
• Shared responsibility between editors and reviewers
• % of manuscripts > instant reject
• % of manuscripts > strong suggestion to reject by reviewers

SHOULD I REVIEW?
• Reviewing will make you a better scientist and a better author
o Learn from others
o Discuss with your supervisor / lab head
• Reviewing is a scientific duty
o Reviewers are not your enemy – they are fellow scientists that will improve
your manuscripts too
o Being invited to review is a form of recognition
• You can be rewarded for reviewing
o Publons – Mendeley
o Add it to your CV – win the OAC award

DIAGNOSE
• Read the abstract (again)
o Write down your questions based on the abstract
• What kind of data do I expect to see?
• What would convince me that the conclusion is correct?
• To which things/issues should I pay attention?
• Read the paper and the figures (obviously)
o Identify (eventual) major problems
o Check your expectations
o Define your first diagnosis/decision
• reject ( = no conceivable treatment available)
• revise (= treat with surgery or band-aid)
• accept (? does it ever happen ?)

TREAT – IMPROVE THE MANUSCRIPT
• Read the paper again and focus on the details
• Title: is it appropriate – does it convey the main message?
• Introduction:
o State of the art literature
o Appropriate recognition of earlier work?
• Methods
o Are these clear? Could you theoretically repeat the experiment?
o Pay attention to the stat method description

TREAT – IMPROVE THE MANUSCRIPT
• Results
o Is the question clear? Does the experiment answer the question?
o Can you identify appropriate controls?
o Data presentation: clear? essential? sufficient?
o Data analysis: see the advise of our statistical editors!
o Be critical about data not shown
• Discussion
o Does it have to be that long/short?

DRAFT YOUR REPORT
• To the Editor:
o Make a clear statement: I suggest to reject / a major revision because …
o Outline your main “diagnosis”
o Outline what you really want to see in a revised version
• To the Authors:
o Short summary – they will be sure you read the paper!
o Main points but without ”decision”
• Additional controls, a rescue experiment is suggested, would make the message more
convincing …
• Figures are not sufficiently clear ….
o Specific points, referring to pages, figures etc…

AVOID
• To be rude, patronizing, competitive, bad …
o Editors do not like hawks or doves – we just need good and fair reviews
o Consider yourself the paper doc
• Do not ask for additional experiments because you can come up with some
o Any additional work should clearly improve the paper
o However, do encourage comprehensive studies!
• Do not impose specific techniques or analyses – let the authors consider as it is
their paper
• Respect author’s choices and be aware that there is also a statistical review in
OAC.

How to write an effective review (and help editors and authors)

The document provides guidance on how to become more involved in peer review. It notes that there is a shortage of high quality peer reviewers due to increased demands on scientists' time and a lack of compensation. It recommends accepting review invitations whenever possible, notifying associate editors of one's review interests, and seeking advice from senior investigators when conducting reviews.

What do we want to see addressed by a reviewer?

OARSI

The document outlines what a reviewer should address when reviewing a manuscript, including evaluating the context and content of the manuscript. For context, the reviewer should assess if the manuscript is presented appropriately within published literature, is novel, and integrates findings into existing knowledge. For content, the reviewer should consider if the study design, methods, models, and analyses are appropriate and if results and conclusions are convincing and supported by evidence presented. The reviewer does not need to worry about spelling, grammar, or editorial guidelines.

Evidence based practice

Aslam Alkadhimi

This document provides guidance on writing and publishing an evidence-based article. It discusses the key steps, which include: 1) Developing a research question and choosing an article type and journal. 2) Assembling authors and assigning roles for writing and providing guidance. 3) Conducting a literature review on the topic drawing from sources like MEDLINE, Cochrane reviews, and RCTs. 4) Outlining the article structure and writing drafts with flowcharts, tables and references to support the content. 5) Finalizing the article by ensuring it achieves the intended purpose and following submission guidelines.

The Peer Review Process

Mike Crabb

The document outlines the academic peer review process. It involves submitting a paper to a conference, which is then assigned to an area chair and sent to reviewers. The reviewers create scores and feedback, which are used by the area chair to write a summary and determine if the paper is accepted or rejected. The process relies on expert reviewers to evaluate the validity and significance of contributions. The document also provides guidance on conducting a detailed peer review, including performing multiple reads of the paper, checking for flaws, structuring a review report, and focusing on strengths as well as areas for improvement.

Writing a scientific paper

Sylvie Noël

This document provides an overview of the typical sections in a research paper or thesis and guidance on how to write each section effectively. It discusses the purpose and content for sections like the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. The document also reviews tips for strong writing like rewriting and getting feedback from others. Overall, it aims to help readers understand what should be included in a research paper and how to structure and tell a compelling story through their writing.

Reading papers seminar 2

Sylvie Noël

This document provides guidance on how to critically analyze scientific papers. It outlines key questions to consider when reading papers, such as the research question, experimental design, results, and conclusions. Some questions include identifying the independent and dependent variables, assessing if the methodology and analysis are appropriate, considering alternative explanations, and evaluating if the conclusions follow from the results. The document stresses the importance of critically evaluating various aspects of papers, from the introduction and literature review to the discussion and limitations.

What do we mean by academic writing?

BruceH99

This document discusses the key features and rules of academic writing. It notes that academic writing is a process, has a clear audience and purpose, and is linear, complex, formal, precise, clear, concise, objective, and accurate. Some rules outlined are that evidence must be based on reliable research, objectivity is valued over subjectivity, and both sides of an argument must be presented. The document also provides tips for avoiding errors like proofreading and using spelling/grammar checks. Common errors like its/it's and e.g./i.e. are explained. The importance of supporting opinions with academic evidence is emphasized.

What editor and reviewers wants?

NSCB Medical College, Jabalpur, India

This document provides guidance on enhancing research skills, including properly scoping a research project, understanding the problem domain, applying critical analysis, and writing critically. It emphasizes the importance of identifying the problem domain, assessing one's position within it, and knowing when to conclude research due to time constraints. The document also offers tips for critical writing, such as focusing on a clear research question, presenting evidence and conclusions balanced with limitations, and structuring work through literature review, methodology, findings, and conclusions. Overall, it stresses questioning all aspects of the research and avoiding mismatches between questions, methods, findings, and conclusions.

Dear Reviewer: Notes of appreciation from authors to peer reviewers

Editage Insights (Resources for authors and journals)

The theme of Peer Review Week 2016 was Recognize Review, and the global scholarly publishing community got together to talk about recognizing or incentivizing peer reviewers. Celebrating the theme, we asked our authors to share small notes of appreciation for reviewers. This flip book compiles some of the responses we received, which show the important role peer review and reviewers play in the academic publishing system.

The art of clinical paper writing

Dr. Aparna Govil Bhasker

The document provides guidance on writing clinical papers. It acknowledges that many papers are written to get published rather than to be read. It outlines common errors in clinical paper writing, including titles that do not match the study, abstracts that exceed word limits or lack important details, introductions that include irrelevant information or omit hypotheses, and methods, results, and discussion sections that do not clearly report on the study design and findings. The document emphasizes writing concisely and focusing on communicating results to readers. It encourages learning from rejections to improve papers for resubmission.

The peer review process

Universitat de Barcelona - Facultat d’Informació i Mitjans Audiovisuals

Presentació realitzada per Ana Marušić en el marc del Seminari sobre la revisió per experts (peer review) que va tenir lloc a la Facultat de Biblioteconomia i Documentació de la UB el 20 de juny de 2011, dins el marc del programa de doctorat “Informació i Documentació en la Societat del Coneixement”. Aquest seminari va ser organitzat conjuntament amb l'EASE (European Association of Science Editors).

Reading Academic Journal Articles

Celia Emmelhainz

How to Publish in Top Journal Articles

Ghulam Hasnain

This document discusses strategies for getting published in top academic journals. It outlines reasons for pursuing publication, such as career advancement and prestige. There are two main types of journals - those that are editor reviewed, focusing on practice, and those that are blind peer reviewed and emphasize new knowledge generation through research. The review process typically involves initial rejection followed by opportunities for revision and resubmission. To improve chances of success, authors should select important topics, conduct high quality studies, craft strong arguments, and write clearly. Overall, pursuing publication is a learning process that benefits from sharing work with others and getting feedback.

المحاضرة السابعة - سلسلة أساسيات البحث العلمي

Egypt Scholars Inc.

This document provides an outline for a presentation on scientific research. It discusses four main types of scientific papers: theoretical papers, experimental papers, fabrication papers, and clinical papers. For each paper type, it describes the key elements and focus. It also discusses literature reviews, including their purpose and common mistakes. Additionally, it covers how to structure a scientific paper, including sections like the abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions. Finally, it provides tips for writing style, including using precise language, correct tenses, active and passive voice, and formatting sentences and paragraphs clearly. The overall document offers guidance on various aspects of writing and presenting scientific work.

Establishing thesis dissertation paper criteria- module 5 &

JO GALLEGOS

This document discusses criteria for evaluating research papers and establishing thesis or dissertation criteria. It outlines three key criteria: quality, relevance, and leadership. Quality reviews emphasize objectivity and expertise of reviewers. Relevance examines whether the research addresses important topics and is useful. Leadership assesses whether the research is at the forefront of knowledge internationally. Additional criteria covered include clear focus, thorough research, logical organization and reasoning, proper documentation, and strong writing mechanics. The document concludes by discussing using rubrics to systematically evaluate research papers based on predetermined criteria.

What is peer review of a manuscript. benefits of peer-reviewing a manuscript ...

Pubrica

• Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are usually not part of the editorial staff. • “The investigator’s final manuscript of a peer-reviewed article accepted for journal publication, including all modifications from the peer review process.” Reference : https://pubrica.com/services/publication-support/peer-review-pre-submission/ Continue Reading : http://bit.ly/3bg2YwA Why Pubrica? When you order our services, Plagiarism free|onTime|outstanding customer support|Unlimited Revisions support|High-quality Subject Matter Experts. Contact us : Web: https://pubrica.com/ Blog: https://pubrica.com/academy/ Email: sales@pubrica.com WhatsApp : +91 9884350006 United Kingdom: +44- 74248 10299

Professor Don Bergh on Academic Publishing (IAM Strategy SIG)

IAMIreland

This document provides lessons learned from over 10 years of experience editing management journals. It discusses how to avoid desk rejections by ensuring the manuscript has a clear contribution, well-crafted sections, and alignment with the target journal. Reviewer comments should be taken seriously and addressed thoroughly in the response letter and revised manuscript. When becoming a reviewer oneself, comments to the editor should be timely, focused on major issues, and aim to improve the manuscript rather than reject. Overall, developing a strong conceptual contribution and crafting each section is key to publication success.

Most common reasons for journal rejections

Editage Insights (Resources for authors and journals)

Peer review workshop

Roger Hellens

Common mistakes in presenting manuscripts to scientific journals

Fredy RS Gutierrez

This document discusses common mistakes made when presenting scientific manuscripts to journals and provides tips to avoid them. It outlines mistakes like poor structure, incorrect statistical analysis, unclear figures, and references. It then provides advice on choosing the right journal, writing clearly, having the work critiqued, and thoroughly proofreading before submission. Overall, the document aims to help scientists improve their manuscript writing and preparation to avoid typical errors that could lead to rejection.

A Writer's Algorithm: Papers without (too much) Pain

CTSI at UCSF

This document provides an overview and outline for a presentation on writing research papers and managing reviews. It discusses frameworks for timely presentation of research and reviews, including the Writer's Algorithm which outlines good writing habits and the typical sections of a paper. The presentation style is meant to be interactive, encouraging attendees to interrupt and share. Key aspects that will be covered include determining the audience and journals, writing the title, abstract, introduction and conclusion, and organizing the methods, results and discussion sections. Guidance is provided on writing each section and ensuring a logical flow that clearly presents the findings and their implications.

What Next: When You are not Funded on the First Round (2020)

UCLA CTSI

What do we mean by critical analysis?

BruceH99

This document discusses enhancing research skills, focusing on problem domains, critical analysis, and conducting academic research. It provides guidance on scoping a research project by identifying the problem domain, assessing your position within it, and knowing when to conclude research. Researchers should build upon existing work through critical analysis and replicate, apply, or extend prior studies. The document also offers tips for critical writing, including focusing on a clear question, justifying your position, providing evidence, and writing balanced conclusions. Structure, questioning assumptions, and considering limitations and ethics are emphasized.

Writing Your Thesis/Disseration

Dr. Niall McElwee

How to get ur paper published

Hesham Al-Inany

Selection of Dissertation Topic and Searching for Literature

Amit Agrawal

The document discusses selecting a dissertation topic and searching for relevant literature. It emphasizes that the topic should be narrow but important, and part of a broader problem. The review of literature is crucial to understand previous work and avoid duplication. Feasibility must be considered in terms of time, resources and the ability to complete the project. Choosing a topic the author is fascinated by and has the skills to research is key to success. The process involves planning, exploring feasibility, reviewing literature, developing a proposal and obtaining necessary approvals.

المحاضرة الخامسة - سلسلة محاضرات البحث العلمي

Egypt Scholars Inc.

This document provides guidance on publishing research papers. It discusses when researchers should publish, what types of publications they should pursue, and how to select venues. The document emphasizes that writing should start early in the research process and be continually improved. It also offers tips on dealing with rejections, enhancing writing skills, and marketing published work. The overall message is that publishing is essential for researchers, and they must train intensively in effective written communication to disseminate their work and advance their careers.

Paper writing

Muhammad Faisal

This document provides guidance on writing a research paper. It discusses why writing a research paper is important, including disseminating results, exchanging knowledge, career advancement, and personal satisfaction. It outlines the typical steps in the scientific writing process, including completing the research, writing the manuscript, submitting to a journal, and undergoing peer review. Finally, it provides detailed instructions on creating each section of a research paper, such as the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and more. The overall document serves as a guide for new researchers on how to structure, write and publish a scientific research paper.

Reviewing an Article, What do reviewers look for in an original article.pdf

Ahmed Elshebiny

Peer reviewers play an important role in evaluating research articles submitted for publication. Reviewers look for originality, scientific merit, quality writing, and relevance. The document outlines the peer review process and provides tips for both authors and reviewers. For authors, presenting a well-organized article with clear writing can help address reviewer comments and improve chances of acceptance. Reviewers should provide constructive feedback within their area of expertise while maintaining confidentiality and disclosing conflicts of interest. Journals are recognizing reviewer contributions to help improve the peer review system.

What's hot

What do we mean by critical analysis

Bruce Hargrave

Dear Reviewer: Notes of appreciation from authors to peer reviewers

Editage Insights (Resources for authors and journals)

The art of clinical paper writing

Dr. Aparna Govil Bhasker

The peer review process

Universitat de Barcelona - Facultat d’Informació i Mitjans Audiovisuals

Reading Academic Journal Articles

Celia Emmelhainz

How to Publish in Top Journal Articles

Ghulam Hasnain

المحاضرة السابعة - سلسلة أساسيات البحث العلمي

Egypt Scholars Inc.

Establishing thesis dissertation paper criteria- module 5 &

JO GALLEGOS

What is peer review of a manuscript. benefits of peer-reviewing a manuscript ...

Pubrica

Professor Don Bergh on Academic Publishing (IAM Strategy SIG)

IAMIreland

Most common reasons for journal rejections

Editage Insights (Resources for authors and journals)

Peer review workshop

Roger Hellens

Common mistakes in presenting manuscripts to scientific journals

Fredy RS Gutierrez

A Writer's Algorithm: Papers without (too much) Pain

CTSI at UCSF

What Next: When You are not Funded on the First Round (2020)

UCLA CTSI

What do we mean by critical analysis?

BruceH99

Writing Your Thesis/Disseration

Dr. Niall McElwee

How to get ur paper published

Hesham Al-Inany

Selection of Dissertation Topic and Searching for Literature

Amit Agrawal

المحاضرة الخامسة - سلسلة محاضرات البحث العلمي

Egypt Scholars Inc.

What's hot (20)

What do we mean by critical analysis

Dear Reviewer: Notes of appreciation from authors to peer reviewers

The art of clinical paper writing

The peer review process

Reading Academic Journal Articles

How to Publish in Top Journal Articles

المحاضرة السابعة - سلسلة أساسيات البحث العلمي

Establishing thesis dissertation paper criteria- module 5 &

What is peer review of a manuscript. benefits of peer-reviewing a manuscript ...

Professor Don Bergh on Academic Publishing (IAM Strategy SIG)

Most common reasons for journal rejections

Peer review workshop

Common mistakes in presenting manuscripts to scientific journals

A Writer's Algorithm: Papers without (too much) Pain

What Next: When You are not Funded on the First Round (2020)

What do we mean by critical analysis?

Writing Your Thesis/Disseration

How to get ur paper published

Selection of Dissertation Topic and Searching for Literature

المحاضرة الخامسة - سلسلة محاضرات البحث العلمي

Similar to How to write an effective review (and help editors and authors)

Paper writing

Muhammad Faisal

Reviewing an Article, What do reviewers look for in an original article.pdf

Ahmed Elshebiny

Basics of reading clinical papers

ROMEO CAGAMPAN

This document provides an overview of how to read clinical papers and summarizes their typical structure and components. It explains that clinical papers are used by medical representatives to present evidence for product claims and understand what is being discussed. The key parts of clinical papers are typically the title, authors, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references. The document provides details on each of these sections and advises the reader to critically analyze the research questions, study design, results and conclusions. It emphasizes comparing the reported data to the authors' analysis and relating the findings to prior research.

week 10 PY7156 LabReportWriteUp 2022 (1).pptx

IowaPerio

The document provides guidance for writing a lab report, including formatting requirements and expectations for each section. Key details include: - The lab report should be 3000 words excluding certain sections and include an abstract, tables/graphs, and references. - Sections should include a title, abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, and references. The introduction should include a literature review, rationale for the study, and hypothesis. - The method section should describe the design, variables, participants, materials, and procedure. The results section should present findings clearly. The discussion should interpret results in the context of previous research. - Guidance is provided for writing each section clearly and objectively, following the conventions of scientific writing

PPT LECTURE ON REPORT WRITING .ppt

Jacob998444

The document provides guidance on writing a research report. It discusses starting the report early and keeping notes. The report should be tailored to its intended audience and follow appropriate formatting. Multiple drafts are typically needed. Backups and printing drafts are advised. Sections like the introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion are described. Presenting tables, quotes and interpreting results are also covered.

Thesis evaluation criteria

Mohamed Amin Embi

This document outlines evaluation criteria for thesis examinations. It discusses what examiners look for in four main areas: the literature review, methodology, presentation of results, and discussion/conclusions. Examiners want the thesis to demonstrate a thorough review of relevant literature, an appropriate methodology, clear presentation of results that answer the research questions, and a discussion that links the results to the literature. The document also provides tips for thesis defenses, including preparing presentation slides and handling questions from examiners. Possible examination verdicts include passing with no corrections, passing with minor or major revisions, resubmission, or failure.

10-1. How to get your manuscript published? Elena Levtchenko (eng)

KidneyOrgRu

This document provides guidance on how to get a manuscript published in a peer-reviewed journal. It discusses targeting the appropriate journal based on the novelty of the findings, writing each section of the paper including the abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion. It emphasizes defining the central message, preparing all data and references, following the target journal's style guidelines, and responding professionally to reviewer feedback. The overall goal is to clearly communicate new findings in a well-written paper and submit it to a journal where it has the best chance of being accepted for publication.

How to write thesis preston2

Alay Ahmad

This document provides guidelines for writing an effective thesis, including recommended sections and how to approach each section. The key sections are: introduction, literature review, methodology, procedure, results and discussion, conclusion, and references. For each section, the document explains the purpose and provides examples and recommendations for content. It emphasizes developing a clear plan and methodology, critically reviewing prior work, clearly defining variables, and discussing results in relation to existing theories.

Writing and Publishing a Research Paper

Padmanabhan Krishnan

This document provides guidance on writing and publishing research papers. It discusses why research papers are written, such as to share findings, get funding, and gain recognition. It offers tips for getting papers published, including knowing the journal's standards, carefully editing the paper, and conforming to the journal's author instructions. The document also outlines what makes a good research paper, including being novel, testing hypotheses mechanically, and properly describing methods and results.

Real-life examples of manuscript reviews Comparison and contrast of useful ...

OARSI

Mar 2 UNY AW Slide.pdf

selviairawan1

The document provides information about best practices for writing and publishing research articles. It discusses choosing the right journal, writing different sections of a research paper like the introduction, methods, results and discussion. It emphasizes writing a clear title and abstract. The document also talks about peer review process, issues with predatory journals, how Scopus identifies and discontinues poor quality journals. Scopus monitors all journals for quality, flags those underperforming, and has experts re-evaluate them which may lead to discontinuation. Maintaining quality is important for the integrity of research.

Abstract writing for conferences

Kishor Patwardhan

Writing a Research Paper.pptx

Noman Ali Ghazanfar

[Enago] Introduction to Academic Publishing

sejin cheon

This document provides an overview of the academic publishing process, including the different types of papers, how to structure an academic manuscript, writing dos and don'ts, what publishers look for, and important resources. It discusses the main types of papers such as research articles, case reports, and review articles. It provides tips for writing each section of a paper, including determining the research gap, developing the literature review, methodology, results, and discussion. The document emphasizes writing clearly, using the active voice, and having language reviewed prior to submission.

How to write article to be published

Ainul Yaqin

This document provides guidance on how to structure and write a research article to be published. It discusses the typical sections of a research article like the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. It emphasizes writing in a clear and concise manner, using informative titles and keywords, including all necessary details in the methods section, and interpreting results in the discussion. The document also addresses ethics issues like avoiding plagiarism, not duplicating publications, and properly citing others' work. Overall, the key aspects covered are the structure, style, and ethical standards required to write a publishable research article.

Scientific writing.pptx

Anand Gaurav, Ph.D.

Scientific writing is an important skill for communicating research effectively. It requires understanding audience and purpose, supporting all statements with evidence, and distinguishing facts from possibilities. Well-written papers are clear, concise, and logical. They avoid unnecessary complexity and do not make readers work harder than needed. References should be used to support assertions but not over-paraphrased, and it is important to thoroughly understand source materials. Overall, scientific writing aims to illuminate rather than impress through simplicity and accuracy.

getting your work published 291107______.ppt

emailwakmah

This document provides information on the journal publishing process, including deciding whether and where to publish research, understanding impact factors, what editors look for in manuscripts, writing the paper, responding to referee reports, and tips for success. The key steps are selecting an appropriate journal, writing a clear and compelling paper, undergoing peer review, responding thoroughly to referee feedback, and revising as needed until the paper is accepted for publication. The overall goal is to contribute new knowledge through high-quality research that will interest readers and be cited.

Publishing in ajp lung 4 21

amcever

This document provides guidance on publishing research in the journal AJP-Lung. It discusses the importance of publication for career advancement and continued funding. It outlines best practices for authorship, including determining author order and meeting authorship criteria. The submission and review process is described, including timelines, criteria for acceptance/rejection, and responding to reviewer feedback. Ethical issues in publishing like plagiarism, data fabrication, and authorship disputes are also covered. The document aims to help researchers successfully publish their work in AJP-Lung.

Critical appraisal

Chai-Eng Tan

Critical appraisal is the process of carefully examining research to judge its validity, relevance, and applicability. It is important to ensure research findings are valid and applicable to one's own population before incorporating them into clinical practice. While research is peer-reviewed, critical appraisal is still needed to avoid misinterpreting results. When critically appraising research, one should examine aspects like the research question, methodology, results, discussion and conclusions to determine the overall quality and implications. Checklists exist to standardize the critical appraisal of different study designs.

How to Structure the “Approach” Section (Basic Science)

UCLA CTSI

Similar to How to write an effective review (and help editors and authors) (20)

Paper writing

Reviewing an Article, What do reviewers look for in an original article.pdf

Basics of reading clinical papers

week 10 PY7156 LabReportWriteUp 2022 (1).pptx

PPT LECTURE ON REPORT WRITING .ppt

Thesis evaluation criteria

10-1. How to get your manuscript published? Elena Levtchenko (eng)

How to write thesis preston2

Writing and Publishing a Research Paper

Real-life examples of manuscript reviews Comparison and contrast of useful ...

Mar 2 UNY AW Slide.pdf

Abstract writing for conferences

Writing a Research Paper.pptx

[Enago] Introduction to Academic Publishing

How to write article to be published

Scientific writing.pptx

getting your work published 291107______.ppt

Publishing in ajp lung 4 21

Critical appraisal

How to Structure the “Approach” Section (Basic Science)

More from OARSI

So You Want To Be a Reviewer?

OARSI

Statistical review is almost always needed for peer-reviewed journals to ensure proper evaluation of a study's sample size, sampling, randomization, blinding, interpretation of findings, and appropriate handling of uncertainty through confidence intervals. Reviewers should check that authors provide confidence intervals that exclude clinically relevant differences when finding no effect, and that interpret the range of possible values when finding a difference. This helps improve the rigor and reliability of clinical research.

Real-life examples of manuscript reviews Comparison and contrast of useful ...

OARSI

Real-life examples of manuscript reviews Comparison and contrast of useful ...

OARSI

Overview of the Editorial Process

OARSI

- Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (OAC) has seen increasing numbers of paper submissions over the years since 2000, allowing it to publish more papers annually despite decreasing acceptance rates. - In 2018, OAC accepted only 24% of submissions, meaning 76% were rejected, making it harder than ever to get published in OAC. - OAC relies on peer reviewers to ensure paper quality and help editors discern the most important works to publish amid rising submission volumes. Reviewers' expertise and feedback improves published papers.

Real-life examples of manuscript reviews Comparison and contrast of useful ...

OARSI

This document provides examples of useful and not so useful reviewer comments on manuscripts. It discusses the importance of using respectful language in reviews and focusing comments on substantive issues that can help authors improve their work, rather than personal opinions. Clarifying questions, suggestions for additional analyses, and respectfully worded critiques of methods or interpretations are given as examples of helpful reviewer feedback, while vague, cryptic or debate-seeking comments are identified as less constructive. The document emphasizes staying focused on the scope and purpose of the manuscript under review.

Statistical Review of Basic Science Manuscripts at Osteoarthritis and Cartila...

OARSI

Imaging of Synovitis in OA

OARSI

Nuts & Bolts of Systematic Reviews, Meta-analyses & Network Meta-analyses

OARSI

Osteoarthriits Imaging: 2018 Year in Review

OARSI

Vincent the Lumper!

OARSI

This document discusses the concept of distinct endotypes or subtypes of osteoarthritis (OA), including "metabolic OA", "post-traumatic OA", "inflammatory OA", and "site-specific OA". However, the author argues that currently there is no strong evidence that these proposed endotypes exist or have clinical utility. The author believes that mechanical injury is the common pathogenic pathway in OA, which can be promoted by factors like age, trauma, metabolism, inflammation, and genetics. Rather than distinct pathways, these factors may influence OA through common pathways like "mechanoflammation" and reducing the ability to repair.

OA White Paper: Broader Implications for Advocacy, Health Policy & Research

OARSI

Structural Targets for Prevention of Post Traumatic OA

OARSI

Building a translational team for impacting public policyPre-Congress Worksh...

OARSI

An industry point of view for building a translational team

OARSI

Christoph Ladel is an employee and shareholder of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. He presents on building a translational team for osteoarthritis drug development. There are gaps in osteoarthritis biomarkers, including a lack of pharmacodynamic biomarkers to measure target engagement and disease progression. Collaborations are working to address these gaps through initiatives analyzing biomarkers in synovial fluid and imaging data from clinical trials. The talk reviews the current biomarker landscape and ongoing efforts between the osteoarthritis research community and industry.

Osteoarthritis: Structural Endpoints for the Development of Drugs, Devices, a...

OARSI

The document discusses considerations for developing medical products to treat osteoarthritis (OA) using structural endpoints. It notes that while modifying disease pathophysiology and changing the natural course of OA is desirable, there are challenges to reliably assessing a product's ability to alter disease progression. Specifically, there is a lack of standard definitions for progression and validated endpoints. Additionally, the relationship between structural changes and symptoms/function is variable. The document advises that substantial evidence would be needed to accept a structural endpoint for accelerated approval and reliably predict clinical benefits like reduced pain and increased function. The ultimate goal is to avoid joint failure and replacement while preserving function and relieving pain.

Understanding the Accelerated Pathway

OARSI

This document discusses the accelerated approval pathway for drugs. It provides three key points: 1. The accelerated approval pathway allows drugs to be approved earlier, typically after 2-5 years instead of the standard timeframe, based on surrogate endpoints that are reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Approval is contingent on further studies to verify clinical benefit. 2. Over 25 years, the FDA has granted accelerated approval to 93 drugs for cancer using surrogate endpoints like tumor shrinkage. 55% of drugs have fulfilled post-approval requirements to verify clinical benefit. 3. Biomarkers that indicate disease processes can be useful surrogate endpoints for accelerated approval of osteoarthritis drugs, which currently have no disease-modifying treatments approved.

Approval of Therapeutics for Osteoarthritis in 2019

OARSI

This document discusses challenges in developing drugs to treat osteoarthritis (OA) by modifying disease structure. OA is a complex disease involving multiple joint structures. Clinical trials must demonstrate that changes in structural endpoints, like cartilage thickness, reliably predict improvements in how patients feel and function. However, there is a lack of standard definitions for structural progression and uncertainty if structural changes translate to clinical benefits. Large trials are needed to concurrently assess structural and symptomatic effects. Biomarkers may help link structural and clinical outcomes if changes reasonably reflect patient benefits. Developing drugs targeting specific joint structures like cartilage or subchondral bone remains difficult given OA's complexity.

YEAR IN REVIEW - Genetics, Genomics, Epigenetics

OARSI

- Two large genome-wide association studies identified 57 new genetic risk loci for osteoarthritis, almost tripling the total number known from 33 to 90. - Studies of hip shape and developmental hip disorders found that some osteoarthritis genetic variants influence hip morphology during development. - New genomic techniques including single-cell RNA sequencing of cartilage and ATAC sequencing to map open chromatin identified cell types and regulatory regions in osteoarthritis. - Epigenetic studies profiled long non-coding RNAs, microRNAs, and histone modifications in osteoarthritis cartilage to characterize the epigenetic landscape.

Year in review - Biochemical markers

OARSI

Erwin van Spil reviewed 116 publications from 2018-2019 on soluble biochemical markers in body fluids of human osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Several key findings were presented: - Novel markers were identified in blood and synovial fluid for knee OA, but need further validation in larger cohorts. - Intervention studies used markers as surrogate endpoints and to understand treatment mechanisms. A trial found colchicine reduced inflammation markers. - Subgroup analyses identified marker profiles for rapidly progressive OA and found profiles differed by radiographic severity and exercise response. Multi-marker approaches may better characterize phenotypes. In conclusion, markers provide insights but specificity remains a challenge. Marker panels may help overcome issues to generate

Year in Review: Mechanics

OARSI

More from OARSI (20)

So You Want To Be a Reviewer?

Real-life examples of manuscript reviews Comparison and contrast of useful ...

Overview of the Editorial Process

Real-life examples of manuscript reviews Comparison and contrast of useful ...

Statistical Review of Basic Science Manuscripts at Osteoarthritis and Cartila...

Imaging of Synovitis in OA

Nuts & Bolts of Systematic Reviews, Meta-analyses & Network Meta-analyses

Osteoarthriits Imaging: 2018 Year in Review

Vincent the Lumper!

OA White Paper: Broader Implications for Advocacy, Health Policy & Research

Structural Targets for Prevention of Post Traumatic OA

Building a translational team for impacting public policyPre-Congress Worksh...

An industry point of view for building a translational team

Osteoarthritis: Structural Endpoints for the Development of Drugs, Devices, a...

Understanding the Accelerated Pathway

Approval of Therapeutics for Osteoarthritis in 2019

YEAR IN REVIEW - Genetics, Genomics, Epigenetics

Year in review - Biochemical markers

Year in Review: Mechanics

Recently uploaded

TEST BANK For An Introduction to Brain and Behavior, 7th Edition by Bryan Kol...

rightmanforbloodline

TEST BANK For An Introduction to Brain and Behavior, 7th Edition by Bryan Kolb, Ian Q. Whishaw, Verified Chapters 1 - 16, Complete Newest Versio TEST BANK For An Introduction to Brain and Behavior, 7th Edition by Bryan Kolb, Ian Q. Whishaw, Verified Chapters 1 - 16, Complete Newest Version TEST BANK For An Introduction to Brain and Behavior, 7th Edition by Bryan Kolb, Ian Q. Whishaw, Verified Chapters 1 - 16, Complete Newest Version

Diabetic nephropathy diagnosis treatment

arahmanzai5

Part II - Body Grief: Losing parts of ourselves and our identity before, duri...

bkling

share - Lions, tigers, AI and health misinformation, oh my!.pptx

Tina Purnat

• Pitfalls and pivots needed to use AI effectively in public health • Evidence-based strategies to address health misinformation effectively • Building trust with communities online and offline • Equipping health professionals to address questions, concerns and health misinformation • Assessing risk and mitigating harm from adverse health narratives in communities, health workforce and health system

OCT Training Course for clinical practice Part 1

KafrELShiekh University

THERAPEUTIC ANTISENSE MOLECULES .pptx

70KRISHPATEL

The Best Ayurvedic Antacid Tablets in India

Swastik Ayurveda

Muscles of Mastication by Dr. Rabia Inam Gandapore.pptx

Dr. Rabia Inam Gandapore

Promoting Wellbeing - Applied Social Psychology - Psychology SuperNotes

PsychoTech Services

Journal Article Review on Rasamanikya

Dr. Jyothirmai Paindla

Rasamanikya is a excellent preparation in the field of Rasashastra, it is used in various Kushtha Roga, Shwasa, Vicharchika, Bhagandara, Vatarakta, and Phiranga Roga. In this article Preparation& Comparative analytical profile for both Formulationon i.e Rasamanikya prepared by Kushmanda swarasa & Churnodhaka Shodita Haratala. The study aims to provide insights into the comparative efficacy and analytical aspects of these formulations for enhanced therapeutic outcomes.

8 Surprising Reasons To Meditate 40 Minutes A Day That Can Change Your Life.pptx

Holistified Wellness

We’re talking about Vedic Meditation, a form of meditation that has been around for at least 5,000 years. Back then, the people who lived in the Indus Valley, now known as India and Pakistan, practised meditation as a fundamental part of daily life. This knowledge that has given us yoga and Ayurveda, was known as Veda, hence the name Vedic. And though there are some written records, the practice has been passed down verbally from generation to generation.

CBL Seminar 2024_Preliminary Program.pdf

suvadeepdas911

TEST BANK For Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, 14th Edition by Bertram G. Kat...

rightmanforbloodline

TEST BANK For Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, 14th Edition by Bertram G. Katzung, Verified Chapters 1 - 66, Complete Newest Version. TEST BANK For Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, 14th Edition by Bertram G. Katzung, Verified Chapters 1 - 66, Complete Newest Version. TEST BANK For Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, 14th Edition by Bertram G. Katzung, Verified Chapters 1 - 66, Complete Newest Version. TEST BANK For Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, 14th Edition by Bertram G. Katzung, Verified Chapters 1 - 66, Complete Newest Version.

Histololgy of Female Reproductive System.pptx

AyeshaZaid1

Dive into an in-depth exploration of the histological structure of female reproductive system with this comprehensive lecture. Presented by Dr. Ayesha Irfan, Assistant Professor of Anatomy, this presentation covers the Gross anatomy and functional histology of the female reproductive organs. Ideal for students, educators, and anyone interested in medical science, this lecture provides clear explanations, detailed diagrams, and valuable insights into female reproductive system. Enhance your knowledge and understanding of this essential aspect of human biology.

Aortic Association CBL Pilot April 19 – 20 Bern

suvadeepdas911

Integrating Ayurveda into Parkinson’s Management: A Holistic Approach

Ayurveda ForAll

CHEMOTHERAPY_RDP_CHAPTER 4_ANTI VIRAL DRUGS.pdf

rishi2789

Tests for analysis of different pharmaceutical.pptx

taiba qazi

Top-Vitamin-Supplement-Brands-in-India List

SwisschemDerma

CHEMOTHERAPY_RDP_CHAPTER 6_Anti Malarial Drugs.pdf

rishi2789

Recently uploaded (20)

TEST BANK For An Introduction to Brain and Behavior, 7th Edition by Bryan Kol...

Diabetic nephropathy diagnosis treatment

Part II - Body Grief: Losing parts of ourselves and our identity before, duri...

share - Lions, tigers, AI and health misinformation, oh my!.pptx

OCT Training Course for clinical practice Part 1

THERAPEUTIC ANTISENSE MOLECULES .pptx

The Best Ayurvedic Antacid Tablets in India

Muscles of Mastication by Dr. Rabia Inam Gandapore.pptx

Promoting Wellbeing - Applied Social Psychology - Psychology SuperNotes

Journal Article Review on Rasamanikya

8 Surprising Reasons To Meditate 40 Minutes A Day That Can Change Your Life.pptx

CBL Seminar 2024_Preliminary Program.pdf

TEST BANK For Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, 14th Edition by Bertram G. Kat...

Histololgy of Female Reproductive System.pptx

Aortic Association CBL Pilot April 19 – 20 Bern

Integrating Ayurveda into Parkinson’s Management: A Holistic Approach

CHEMOTHERAPY_RDP_CHAPTER 4_ANTI VIRAL DRUGS.pdf

Tests for analysis of different pharmaceutical.pptx

Top-Vitamin-Supplement-Brands-in-India List

CHEMOTHERAPY_RDP_CHAPTER 6_Anti Malarial Drugs.pdf

How to write an effective review (and help editors and authors)

2. How to write an effective review (and help editors and authors) Rik Lories, MD PhD – Associate Editor OAC Skeletal Biology and Engineering Research Centre, KU Leuven Division of Rheumatology, University Hospitals Leuven

3. Rik Lories, MD PhD Professor of Experimental Rheumatology Director of the Laboratory of Tissue Homeostasis and Disease KU Leuven, Skeletal Biology and Engineering Research Centre and University Hospitals Leuven, Division of Rheumatology Disclosure Information • Leuven Research and Development, the technology transfer office of KU Leuven has received consultancy and speakers fees, and research grants on behalf of the presenter from: Abbvie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samumed and UCB AND My presentation does not include discussion of off-label or investigational use.

4. ER DOC

5. TRIAGE • Shared responsibility between editors and reviewers • % of manuscripts > instant reject • % of manuscripts > strong suggestion to reject by reviewers

6. SHOULD I REVIEW THIS PAPER?

7. SHOULD I REVIEW? • Reviewing will make you a better scientist and a better author o Learn from others o Discuss with your supervisor / lab head • Reviewing is a scientific duty o Reviewers are not your enemy – they are fellow scientists that will improve your manuscripts too o Being invited to review is a form of recognition • You can be rewarded for reviewing o Publons – Mendeley o Add it to your CV – win the OAC award

8. DIAGNOSE • Read the abstract (again) o Write down your questions based on the abstract • What kind of data do I expect to see? • What would convince me that the conclusion is correct? • To which things/issues should I pay attention? • Read the paper and the figures (obviously) o Identify (eventual) major problems o Check your expectations o Define your first diagnosis/decision • reject ( = no conceivable treatment available) • revise (= treat with surgery or band-aid) • accept (? does it ever happen ?)

9. TREAT – IMPROVE THE MANUSCRIPT • Read the paper again and focus on the details • Title: is it appropriate – does it convey the main message? • Introduction: o State of the art literature o Appropriate recognition of earlier work? • Methods o Are these clear? Could you theoretically repeat the experiment? o Pay attention to the stat method description

10. TREAT – IMPROVE THE MANUSCRIPT • Results o Is the question clear? Does the experiment answer the question? o Can you identify appropriate controls? o Data presentation: clear? essential? sufficient? o Data analysis: see the advise of our statistical editors! o Be critical about data not shown • Discussion o Does it have to be that long/short?

11. DRAFT YOUR REPORT • To the Editor: o Make a clear statement: I suggest to reject / a major revision because … o Outline your main “diagnosis” o Outline what you really want to see in a revised version • To the Authors: o Short summary – they will be sure you read the paper! o Main points but without ”decision” • Additional controls, a rescue experiment is suggested, would make the message more convincing … • Figures are not sufficiently clear …. o Specific points, referring to pages, figures etc…

12. AVOID • To be rude, patronizing, competitive, bad … o Editors do not like hawks or doves – we just need good and fair reviews o Consider yourself the paper doc • Do not ask for additional experiments because you can come up with some o Any additional work should clearly improve the paper o However, do encourage comprehensive studies! • Do not impose specific techniques or analyses – let the authors consider as it is their paper • Respect author’s choices and be aware that there is also a statistical review in OAC.

How to write an effective review (and help editors and authors)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to How to write an effective review (and help editors and authors)

Similar to How to write an effective review (and help editors and authors) (20)

More from OARSI

More from OARSI (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

How to write an effective review (and help editors and authors)