An Introduction to Reviewing Research Articles for Academic Journals.

Description Among the pillars of science is the galvanizing process of peer review. Editors of medical and scientific publications recruit specialty leaders to evaluate the quality of manuscripts. These peer reviewers help to ensure that data are collected, analyzed, and interpreted as accurately as possible, thereby moving the field forward and ultimately improving patient care. As physician-scientists, we are given the opportunity and responsibility to participate in the peer review process. There are many benefits to engaging in the peer review process including exposure to cutting-edge research, growing your connection with the academic community, and fulfilling the scholarly activity requirements of your accrediting organization. In the present manuscript, we discuss the key components of the peer review process and hope that it will serve as a primer for the novice reviewer and as a useful guide for the experienced reviewer.

Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers.

The peer review process is essential for quality checks and validation of journal submissions. Although it has some limitations, including manipulations and biased and unfair evaluations, there is no other alternative to the system. Several peer review models are now practised, with public review being the most appropriate in view of the open science movement. Constructive reviewer comments are increasingly recognised as scholarly contributions which should meet certain ethics and reporting standards. The Publons platform, which is now part of the Web of Science Group (Clarivate Analytics), credits validated reviewer accomplishments and serves as an instrument for selecting and promoting the best reviewers. All authors with relevant profiles may act as reviewers. Adherence to research reporting standards and access to bibliographic databases are recommended to help reviewers draft evidence-based and detailed comments.

Análise de estudos qualitativos conduzidos por médicos publicados em periódicos científicos brasileiros entre 2004 e 2013 / Analysis of qualitative studies conducted by physicians and published in Brazilian scientific journals between 2004 and 2013

Resumo Analisamos artigos de pesquisas realizadas por médicos que utilizaram método qualitativo. A busca bibliográfica foi feita na base SciELO do Brasil no período de 2004 a 2013 com as palavras-chave: pesquisa qualitativa, entrevista, grupo focal, observação participante, análise de conteúdo, análise de discurso, representação social, hermenêutica-dialética. Abordamos os textos por meio de constructo teórico baseado nas diretrizes RATS para revisão de estudos qualitativos. Classificamos o material nas categorias: consistente, pouco consistente e inconsistente. Selecionamos 135 artigos de 28 periódicos. Consideramos a maioria consistente (64,4%). Os principais problemas encontrados foram: ausência de informações sobre percurso metodológico; análise parcial e descritiva, sem diálogo com a literatura; conclusões que não avançam além do senso comum; resultados descontextualizados e limitações do estudo não consideradas. Concluímos que a maior parte dos artigos analisados tem validade científica e sugerimos a inclusão de normas para esse tipo de publicação nos periódicos da área de saúde.

Abstract We analyze articles resulting from research by physicians using qualitative methods. The bibliographic search was conducted in the SciELO Brazil from 2004 to 2013 with the keywords: qualitative study, interview, focus group, participant observation, content and speech analysis, social representation, hermeneutic-dialectic. We approach the texts through a theoretical construct based on RATS guidelines for review qualitative studies. We classified the material as: consistent, somewhat consistent and inconsistent. A total of 135 articles in 28 periodicals were selected. We evaluated most articles as consistent (64.4%). The main problems found were: lack of information of the methodological approach; partial descriptive analysis of data without dialogue with literature; conclusions that go no further than common sense; results lacking context and no consideration of limitations on the study. We concluded that the most articles are scientifically valid and we suggest that journals of the health area include specific guidelines in their editorial standards for this type of publication.

Revisiones por pares de protocolos presentados a un Comité local de investigación en salud. Tabasco, México, 2009 / Peer review of research projects showed to a health research local Committee. Tabasco, Mexico, 2009

INTRODUCCIÓN: Frecuentemente se encuentran errores en protocolos y reportes de investigación, su estudio permite detectar necesidades de educación continua. OBJETIVO: Identificar los errores en los protocolos presentados al Comité Local de Investigación en Salud del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, en Tabasco, México, durante el año 2009. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Diseño transversal descriptivo. Universo: 62 protocolos presentados en el año 2009. Muestra: no probabilística por conveniencia. Criterios de inclusión: protocolos presentados y dictaminados durante el período de estudio, que cuenten con registros de su revisión por pares. Variables: dictámenes, revisores y errores: de presentación, introducción, método y éticos. Fuente de información: archivos de revisiones por pares con base en la "Guía para la evaluación de protocolos de investigación" del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Procedimientos: sistematización de información de revisiones por pares. Análisis: estadística descriptiva. Software: Epi Info® versión 3.3.2 para entorno Windows™. RESULTADOS: Se dictaminaron 50 protocolos de investigación: 32 autorizados (64%), 10 no autorizados (20%) y 8 con dictamen de modificarlo y volverlo a presentar (16%). Errores más frecuentes: sintaxis y ortografía incorrectas, (62%;), carta de consentimiento informado inadecuada, 45%; fundamentación inadecuada del problema, 36%; descripción insuficiente de procedimientos, 36%. CONCLUSIONES: Los errores en las consideraciones éticas y de redacción son los más frecuentes en los protocolos de investigación presentados al Comité Local de Investigación en Salud del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social en Tabasco. Se requiere capacitar en estos aspectos al personal de salud de la institución que realiza o asesora trabajos de investigación

INTRODUCTION: Frequently they found fails in research projects and reports, and your study show continuing education needs. OBJECTIVE: to identify errors in projects presented to Health Research Local Committee of the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social from Tabasco, Mexico, during 2009. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cross-sectional and descriptive design. Universe: 62 projects presented in 2009. Sample: no randomized for convenience. Inclusion criteria: projects presented and ruled in 2009 that and counted with peer review files. Variables: verdicts, reviewers, presentation errors, introduction errors, method errors, ethic methods. Information source: peer review files based on "Research projects evaluation guide" of the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Procedures: systematization of peer review information. Analysis: descriptive statistic. Software: Epi Info© version 3.3.2 for Windows™ environment. RESULTS: 50 research projects were ruled: 32 authorized (64%), 10 non-authorized (20%), 8 with modification and sending back to peer-review (16%). As the most frecuent errors, were found: incorrect syntax and spelling 62%, inadequate informed consent letter 45%, lack of appropriate foundation 36%, insufficient description of procedures 36%. Conclusions: The most frequents errors in the research projects presented to the Health Research Local Committee of the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social were about the ethical considerations and the redaction. For this reason to qualify in these aspects to health personnel of institution that carry out and advice on research works is required