1 / 18

Basics of peer review

Basics of peer review. Steve McCaw Illinois State University www.castonline.ilstu.edu/mccaw. Purpose of Peer Review. Improve what is published Help the editor decide what to do with the manuscript Help the author(s) improve the manuscript. Steps to MSSE review.

ayala
Download Presentation

Basics of peer review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Basics of peer review Steve McCaw Illinois State University www.castonline.ilstu.edu/mccaw

  2. Purpose of Peer Review • Improve what is published • Help the editor decide what to do with the manuscript • Help the author(s) improve the manuscript

  3. Steps to MSSE review • Manuscript submitted electronically • Entered into Editorial Manager system • Assigned to Associate Editor • Steve Messier, Danny Pincivero, Steve McCaw • Identify and distribute to reviewers • Synthesize reviews • Makes a decision • Accept/revise/reject

  4. Accept/Revise/Reject • Most authors will ultimately be unsatisfied • MSSE acceptance rate (Dr. Andrew Young): • Goal29% • 2007: 39% • 2006: 31% • Why a goal for acceptance? • Time to publication • MSSE wants only the highest quality manuscripts

  5. The Initial Contact • Receive email request from Associate Editor • Includes the Abstract and Due Date • Respond ASAP (within 7 days) • Editorial Manager generated follow up • Factors affecting taking on the review • Don’t bite off more than you can chew • Suggest someone else • Do you have the expertise? • Do have the time? • 2-4 hours for experienced • 8-12 hours for novice • Is there a conflict of interest? • Real or Perceived

  6. Review Format • Confidential comments to Editor • Suitability for publication • Worth allowing revisions? • Possible research misconduct / ethical issues • Is a commentary warranted? • Comments to author • General • Paraphrase the purpose, methods, results, discussion • Specific comments (refer to page number and line number) • Major comments • Minor comments

  7. Provide rigorous, detailed and constructive comments • In my opinion, … • As shown by Smith et al (2004), … • Utilize 1st person • “I didn’t understand…”, “I’d like more explanation about…”, “I couldn’t follow…” • Avoid 2nd person • ‘You should …”, “You need to …”

  8. Scientific Quality • Research Question • Methods • Subjects • Design • Results • Tables/figures • Discussion • References • Title/Abstract

  9. Scientific Quality • Research Question • Methods • Subjects • Design • Results • Tables/figures • Discussion • References • Title/Abstract Strengths & Weaknesses

  10. Research Question • Clearly defined • Original • Specify what it adds to existing knowledge • Specify what it replicates • Leads to specific hypotheses • Important? • Clinicians/clinicians? Researchers? Educators? Policy makers? Patients? Athletes?

  11. Scientific Quality • Research Question • Methods • Subjects • Design • Results • Tables/figures • Discussion • References • Title/Abstract S & W • Defined populations • Inclusion/exclusion criteria • Statistical Power • Non-biased treatments (IVs) • # trials • Appropriate Detail • Instrumentation • Data Reduction • Clear outcome measures (DVs) • Statistical Analysis

  12. Scientific Quality • Research Question • Methods • Subjects • Design • Results • Tables/figures • Discussion • References • Title/Abstract S & W • Appropriate order of presentation • Identify statistical significance • Tables/figures match text? • No replication • Anything missing?

  13. Scientific Quality • Research Question • Methods • Subjects • Design • Results • Tables/figures • Discussion • References • Title/Abstract S & W • Five I’s of a good discussion • Integrate • Interpret • Implications • Identify Limitations • Ideas for future research Casa, 2001

  14. Scientific Quality • Research Question • Methods • Subjects • Design • Results • Tables/figures • Discussion • References • Title/Abstract S & W • Thorough? • Up to date? • Original ideas duly noted?

  15. Scientific Quality • Research Question • Methods • Subjects • Design • Results • Tables/figures • Discussion • References • Title/Abstract S & W • Fit with the paper • Adequate overview

  16. General Points • You provide advice • Associate Editor makes decision • Be rigorous, courteous and constructive • May not be suitable for MSSE, but most get submitted elsewhere • Mum’s the word • Do not use for revenge • Declare competing interest • Do not copy edit • No punctuation or spelling (except names) • Does it read well and make sense? • Be timely

  17. Final Points • Everyone contributes to the review of a paper • Some flaws get through • Write a letter to the editor • Reference in your own work www.castonline.ilstu.edu/mccaw

  18. Acknowledgements • All who have served as MSSE reviewer • British Medical Journal • www.bmj.com/advice • Casa, D. Five I’s of a good discussion, NATA News, August, 2001), p 56. • Writing across the curriculum, UW-Madison

More Related