How to be a good reviewer: A step-by-step guide for approaching peer review of a scientific manuscript.

Objectives: The peer review process is critical to maintaining quality, reliability, novelty, and innovation in the scientific literature. However, the teaching of scientific peer review is rarely a component of formal scientific or clinical training, and even the most experienced peer reviewers express interest in continuing education. The objective of this review article is to summarize the collective perspectives of experienced journal editors about how to be a good reviewer in a step-by-step guide that can serve as a resource for the performance of peer review of a scientific manuscript. Methods: This is a narrative review. Results: A review of the history and an overview of the modern-day peer review process are provided with attention to the role played by the reviewer, including important reasons for involvement in scientific peer review. The general components of a scientific peer review are described, and a model for how to structure a peer review report is provided. These concepts are also summarized in a reviewer checklist that can be used in real-time to develop and double-check one's reviewer report before submitting it. Conclusions: Peer review is a critically important service for maintaining quality in the scientific literature. Peer review of a scientific manuscript and the associated reviewer's report should assess specific details related to the accuracy, validity, novelty, and interpretation of a study's results. We hope that this article will serve as a resource and guide for reviewers of all levels of experience in the performance of peer review of a scientific manuscript.

A health sciences researcher's experience of manuscript review comments, 2020-2022.

BACKGROUND: Peer review frequently improves a manuscript, but authors may consider some reviewer feedback negative, inappropriate or unclear. This study aims to summarise and analyse review comments received by authors. METHODS: This longitudinal study included all submissions of which the researcher was an author, reviewed by any journal during 2020-2022. First-round reviews were retrieved from emails and documents received by the authors or the faculty's medical editors or the journal platforms. A confidential datasheet with review items compiled from literature and the researcher's experience as author and reviewer was completed for each submission. Review comments were noted verbatim for subjective items such as rude or vague statements. RESULTS: The 65 submissions received 118 reviews from 36 journals, mainly in the form of unstructured narrative reports (59%). The majority of first-round reviews (58%), including those for rejected submissions, contained some positive comments. Reviewers frequently (75% of reviews, 88% of submissions) required some expansion of information. Vague and incorrect statements occurred in 15% and 18% of reviews, respectively. Only two reviews contained statements that could be considered rude. The types of comments made were associated with the review format. CONCLUSION: The majority of reviews contained some positive comments and rude comments were extremely rare. Reviewers frequently requested the expansion of information provided.Contribution: This study gives insight to authors, reviewers and editors regarding the type and tone of review comments. This could guide authors during manuscript preparation and authors, reviewers and editors during the review process.

Ponderings on peer review. Part 2. Manuscript critiques.

In part 1 of this Perspective, I discussed general principles of scientific peer review in the biomedical sciences aimed at early-stage investigators (i.e., graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty). Here in part 2, I share my thoughts specifically on the topic of peer review of manuscripts. I begin by defining manuscript peer review and discussing the goals and importance of the concept. I then describe the organizational structure of the process, including the two distinct stages involved. Next, I emphasize several important considerations for manuscript reviewers, both general points and key considerations when evaluating specific types of papers, including original research manuscripts, reviews, methods articles, and opinion pieces. I then advance some practical suggestions for developing the written critique document, offer advice for making an overall recommendation to the editor (i.e., accept, revise, reject), and describe the unique issues involved when assessing a revised manuscript. Finally, I comment on how best to gain experience in the essential academic research skill of manuscript peer review. In part 3 of the series, I will discuss the topic of reviewing grant applications submitted to research funding agencies.

Mentoring Journal Manuscript Reviewers Using a Competency-Based Approach: The Next Developmental Stage for the Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings.

Founded in 1994, The Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings (JCPMS) has paralleled the development of psychology's role in health care as well as contributing to its growth in science, services, and education in medical settings. JCPMS provides an essential, unique publishing outlet for health service psychology as represented by the recognized psychological specialties in those settings. At this point in its development, The Journal has turned its attention to generativity and contributing further to the field by helping prepare the next generation of journal manuscript reviewers and future psychological scientists. A brief developmental history of The Journal and its relationship to the evolution of health service psychology is offered followed by a description of a task-specific mentoring process for a new generation of manuscript reviewers. Building on work by other authors, a competency-based model is used to rearrange previously published guidance into categories of knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to become a competent manuscript reviewer. General competencies are described within each of those categories as well as specific behavioral anchors that a mentee must master in order to carry out a competent review.

Pitfalls in scientific research: critical appraisal of articles published in one of the international journals in Egypt.

BACKGROUND: To identify and report flaws of Internet-published articles in the Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute (JENCI), Cairo University, through a retrospective documentary study on articles published during the period from 2011 to 2016. All sections were reviewed against a collective checklist. Articles were grouped by publication year into 2 intervals: early (from 2011 to 2013) and recent (from 2014 to 2016) to identify changes in study characteristics over time. RESULTS: The study included 139 original articles. Half of the titles represented aim and 9.4% represented study design. Abstracts were concise, clear, with structured writing format in 98.6%, 93.5%, and 35.3%, respectively. Most introductions included the study aim, while 41% had a rationale. Study timing was reported in 59.0%, while the study design was reported in 25.9%. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly reported in 43.1% and 40.1%, respectively. Statistical methods were mentioned in 80.6%, complete in 30.4%, and appropriate in 85.7%. Four studies reported sample size estimation. Only 52.5% and 58.3% of results were exhaustive and answer the research question, respectively. Incorrect statistical calculations occurred in 41.0%, inappropriate statistical tests or descriptive parameter selection in 26.6%, while inappropriate test application occurred in 49.1%. About 60% of discussions did not completely cover results, 31.7% fully justified the findings, 56.1% followed a logical flow, and 36.7% had contradiction within the text. Conclusions were mostly linked to aim, imprecise, and extrapolating beyond results. On comparing both periods, only a significant less misuse of statistical terms, more reporting conflict of interest, more missing references for cited texts in the recent period, and more participation of NCI over other institutes in the early period were found. CONCLUSION: Articles published in JENCI (from 2011 to 2016) had many methodological and reporting defects and some points of strength. Using the collective checklist developed by this study, continuous training of researchers, involving epidemiologists throughout the whole research process, and applying strict journal reporting and publication rules should be encouraged.

What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Peer review is at the heart of the scientific process. With the advent of digitisation, journals started to offer electronic articles or publishing online only. A new philosophy regarding the peer review process found its way into academia: the open peer review. Open peer review as practiced by BioMed Central (BMC) is a type of peer review where the names of authors and reviewers are disclosed and reviewer comments are published alongside the article. A number of articles have been published to assess peer reviews using quantitative research. However, no studies exist that used qualitative methods to analyse the content of reviewers' comments. METHODS: A focused mapping review and synthesis (FMRS) was undertaken of manuscripts reporting qualitative research submitted to BMC open access journals from 1 January - 31 March 2018. Free-text reviewer comments were extracted from peer review reports using a 77-item classification system organised according to three key dimensions that represented common themes and sub-themes. A two stage analysis process was employed. First, frequency counts were undertaken that allowed revealing patterns across themes/sub-themes. Second, thematic analysis was conducted on selected themes of the narrative portion of reviewer reports. RESULTS: A total of 107 manuscripts submitted to nine open-access journals were included in the FMRS. The frequency analysis revealed that among the 30 most frequently employed themes "writing criteria" (dimension II) is the top ranking theme, followed by comments in relation to the "methods" (dimension I). Besides that, some results suggest an underlying quantitative mindset of reviewers. Results are compared and contrasted in relation to established reporting guidelines for qualitative research to inform reviewers and authors of frequent feedback offered to enhance the quality of manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: This FMRS has highlighted some important issues that hold lessons for authors, reviewers and editors. We suggest modifying the current reporting guidelines by including a further item called "Degree of data transformation" to prompt authors and reviewers to make a judgment about the appropriateness of the degree of data transformation in relation to the chosen analysis method. Besides, we suggest that completion of a reporting checklist on submission becomes a requirement.

The peer review process.

The peer review process provides a foundation for the credibility of scientific findings in medicine. The following article discusses the history of peer review in scientific and medical journals, the process for the selection of peer reviewers, and how journal editors arrive at a decision on submitted manuscripts. To aid authors who are invited to revise their manuscripts for further consideration, we outline steps for considering reviewer comments and provide suggestions for organizing the author's response to reviewers. We also examine ethical issues in peer review and provide recommendations for authors interested in becoming peer reviewers themselves.

Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals.

BACKGROUND: Despite rapid growth of the scientific literature, no consensus guidelines have emerged to define the optimal criteria for editors to grade submitted manuscripts. The purpose of this project was to assess the peer reviewer metrics currently used in the surgical literature to evaluate original manuscript submissions. METHODS: Manuscript grading forms for 14 of the highest circulation general surgery-related journals were evaluated for content, including the type and number of quantitative and qualitative questions asked of peer reviewers. Reviewer grading forms for the seven surgical journals with the higher impact factors were compared to the seven surgical journals with lower impact factors using Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Impact factors of the studied journals ranged from 1.73 to 8.57, with a median impact factor of 4.26 in the higher group and 2.81 in the lower group. The content of the grading forms was found to vary considerably. Relatively few journals asked reviewers to grade specific components of a manuscript. Higher impact factor journal manuscript grading forms more frequently addressed statistical analysis, ethical considerations, and conflict of interest. In contrast, lower impact factor journals more commonly requested reviewers to make qualitative assessments of novelty/originality, scientific validity, and scientific importance. CONCLUSION: Substantial variation exists in the grading criteria used to evaluate original manuscripts submitted to the surgical literature for peer review, with differential emphasis placed on certain criteria correlated to journal impact factors.

Defining the Barriers to Women Publishing in High-Impact Journals.

Publications are an important measure of success in science, and publications in top-tier journals are often highly prized for that reason. This commentary describes gender differences in publication of HIV-related papers that raise questions about best practices in this important aspect of science. Data are needed in cases where there are differences in the publication rates of manuscripts with female versus male senior authors so that approaches that best support diversity in science can be defined.

'How to count sperm properly': checklist for acceptability of studies based on human semen analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: Can a tool be developed for authors, reviewers and editors of the ESHRE Journals to improve the quality of published studies which rely on semen analysis data? SUMMARY ANSWER: A basic checklist for authors, reviewers and editors has been developed and is presented. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Laboratory work which includes semen analysis is burdened by a lack of standardization. This has significant negative effects on the quality of scientific and epidemiological studies, potential misclassification of patients and the potential to impair clinical treatments/diagnoses that rely on accurate semen quality information. Robust methods are available to reduce laboratory error in semen analysis, inducing adherence to World Health Organization techniques, participation in an external quality control scheme and appropriate training of laboratory personnel. However, journals have not had appropriate systems to assess if these methods have been used. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: After discussion at a series of Associate Editor Meetings of the ESHRE Journals the authors of the present text were asked to propose a tool for authors, reviewers and editors of the ESHRE Journals to ensure a high quality assessment of submitted manuscripts which rely on semen analysis data, including a detailed verification of the relevance and the quality of the methods used. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: N/A. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A basic checklist for authors, reviewers and editors is presented. The checklist contains key points which should be considered by authors when designing studies and which provides essential information for when the submitted manuscript is evaluated. For published articles the answers in the checklist are suitable to be available as supplementary data, which will also reduce the space necessary for technical details in the printed article. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Guidelines such as these should not be used uncritically. It is therefore important that submitting authors, in situations where their study does not comply with the basic requirements for semen analysis, not only explain all methodological deviations but also declare the level of uncertainty in their analyses and how it complies with, or might confound, the aims of the study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The fundamental importance of appropriate and robust methodology to facilitate advances in scientific understanding and patient management and treatment, is now accepted as being paramount. Use of the semen analysis checklist should be part of this process, and when completed and signed by the corresponding author at the time of submitting a manuscript should result in greater transparency, and ultimately uniformity. It is hoped that this initiative will pave the way for wider adoption of the methodology/reporting by other biomedical, epidemiological and scientific journals, and ultimately become the standard of practice for papers reporting semen analysis results obtained in laboratory and clinical andrology. Systems to assist referees, authors and editors to present high quality findings should have a significant impact on the field of reproductive medicine. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding was obtained for this work. The authors have no competing interests in relation to the present publication and checklist. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.