20-Peer Review

Question 1

Who are the key people in peer reviewing and what are their tasks?

Answer 1

• Journal Staff–oversee receipt of manuscript, communication between author and reviewers, formatting
• Editorial Board–read/review papers, select reviewers, monitor quality, recommend actions to Editor
• Editors–make final decisions
• Reviewer–provide reviews of manuscripts; make recommendations concerning publication

Question 2

What are the attributes of a good reviewer?

Answer 2

• Expert
• Objective
• No conflicts of interest (overlaps with your work; same institution; collaborator/friend; financial gain; personal belief
• Good judgment
• Able to think clearly and logically
• Able to write a good critique
• Accurate
• Readable
• Helpful to editors and authors
• Reliable in returning reviews
• Able to do the review in the allotted time frame (<4 weeks; few hours per review)

Question 3

What is the process of peer reviewing?

Answer 3

• Potential reviewer contacted by journal
• Given authors, title, abstract, and time frame for review
• Reviewer agrees to review paper (or declines)
• Reviewer receives paper
• Reviewer performs review
• Reviewer submits review to editors
• Editors examine reviews, obtain additional reviews if needed, and make decision
• Decision goes to author, with comments from reviewers
• Reviewer thanked; may be informed of decision; may receive copy of comments sent to author

Question 4

What is the content of peer review?

Answer 4

• Review form (checklist/rubric useful)
• Comments to editor
• Start with a Summary (Assignment #5)
• Candid perspective
• Comments to authors•General comments (Summary; i.e., your interpretation)
• Specific recommendations (Major and Minor; Assignment #6)
• Journal may ask specific questions to ensure that specific points are addressed

Question 5

How to summarize an article?

Answer 5

1. What was the purpose of the study (‘intro’)
   • Context (big picture) –> Knowledge Gap –> Study Objective/Hypothesis [3 sentences]
2. Study details / ‘methods’ (~5 sentences)
   • Study type (“Key Approaches” Lecture) –experiment or observational study… specific type…. Population/model… [PICO-T model]
   •Independent variable? Dependent variable? Other variables?
   •How did they perform the work
3. Study findings / ‘results’
   •Re-state the results in your own words (<3 sentences)

Question 6

Peer Review –What to look for?

Answer 6

Importance and novelty of the work
• appropriateness of the materials, methods and experimental model systems
• rigor of the experimental design (including the inclusion of appropriate controls)
• quality of the data•appropriateness of the statistical analyses
• rigor of the interpretation of the data
• value of the discussion of the data
• validity of the conclusions drawn in the paper

The length of the paper
• The writing quality
• The clarity, accuracy, and completeness of the figures and tables
• The accuracy and adequacy of the introduction which frames the area of the research, of the discussions of prior and related work, and of

Question 7

What are the questions to ask when evaluating a paper?

Answer 7

• Where does the research fit with previous findings? Knowledge grows cumulatively…
• Are the arguments coherent? Persuasive? Bias and emotional?
• Are the data analyzed in a systematic manner?
• Are the findings useful? Applicable?
• What are the broader impacts of the work?

Question 8

How to determine a journal’s impact factor?

Answer 8

total number of times its articles were cited during the two previous years/total number of citable articles in the journal during those two years = A journal’s impact factor for that particular year.