How to Review for Reviewers?

Dorothea Cassidy-Pfohl, RN, BS, MSCN
IJMSC Website Liaison


If you have ever 'trained the trainer' you will know the great fun I had in reviewing two classic articles for reviewers on how to review manuscripts. My skill set definitely grew exponentially by absorbing the principles of each excellent yet different approaches to the process. We are pleased to provide these articles, references, and comments on the topic and the link to the Journal (IJMSC) where our reviewers are treasured for their contributions to this superb CMSC resource.

As always, your input and participation are welcome and invited.



JOURNAL REVIEWS

How I Review an Original Scientific Article
Frederic G Hoppin, Jr.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med Vol 166. Pp1019-2002

How To Review a Manuscript: a ‘Down-To-Earth’ Approach
Laura Weiss Roberts, MD, MA - John Coverdale, MD FRANZCP- Kristin Edneharder, BA- Alan Louis, MD. Academic Psychiatry, 28:2, Summer 2004
Reprinted with permission from Academic Psychiatry, (Copyright 2004). American Psychiatric Association.

With the intention of introducing a mutually beneficial contribution to our website visitors and Journal supporters (IJMSC), I reviewed two articles on reviewing submissions for publication. In the process I learned a great deal about the benevolent mentorship the review experience provides and the gift to authors it bestows.

Roberts’s editorial is a classic ‘how to write a manuscript review’. A task many take on sans training, the authors attest that ‘performing a thoughtful peer evaluation of a manuscript is an acquired skill, however, and one that may not be normally taught in many academic departments or postgraduate training programs.’

A key goal of peer review includes assisting the editors in their decision about publishing a manuscript as well as providing constructive feedback to authors to enhance the quality of the final product. While the process is inherently valuable, regardless of outcome, some tenets emerge such as the importance of timely review. Even early rejection for an inappropriate topic can be valuable to editor and author alike. Short turnaround time is commandment number one.

Reviewers usually identify a range of strengths and weaknesses found and provide ratings on the publishability and acceptability of the manuscript. Included in this article’s advice are elements of peer review. Feedback for authors and the speed of on-line review expedite the process, but deferred decisions need not be perceived as rejections. Review of the revisions should be requested of original reviewers. Confidentiality is another quality that provides masked identity for the author and reviewer but as we will learn in the second article I reviewed (Hoppin), also provides a buffer to the editors so they are not unduly biased by the prestige of reviewer’s opinions.

Among the suggestions I found useful was the ‘comments to the editor’ format. This includes parameters for originality, clarity, use of relevant references, need for statistical consultation, utility of tables and figures and adequate discussion and conclusions. Roberts also advises making a succinct comment on the weight and strengths of the work compared to weaknesses of the manuscript and, importantly, whether it contains original ideas. There is a well-timed caveat about over-interpretation of the data, (“speculative, unsubstantiated, or unsupported comments”) which serves as caution to authors and reviewers alike.

It is assumed that a reviewer will have familiarity with the relevant literature, but Roberts challenges the reviewer to take it to a higher level and embrace their role, which she defines as both collaborative and teaching. As such, the role is said to be ‘entrusted’ to the reviewer challenging self reflection about potential biases and preexisting views permiting comments to the author to be inclusive, instructive, respectful and compassionate. The template: CHECKLIST OF REVIEW CRITERIA ( found on pages 86 and 87) were reprinted with permission from Academic Medicine, Journal of the Association of American Medical College, Vol 76, No9 (September 2001). It has found a permanent place on my clipboard.

Written in the first person, Dr Frederic Hoppin delivers a personal master’s class about reviewing scientific articles and takes us on a fascinating journey into his thoughts and style. With an eye to recognizing the potential of the work being reviewed, Hopper’s enthusiasm for science and discovery is undeniable. His open-minded approach is complimented by logical and straightforward process. He begins with the qualities desired in a reviewer and the value of reviews to the author and editor. He seems to be asking himself key questions, like whether old principles can be applied to new science, and muses that at times reviewing can be a thankless task which demands significant time, effort and energy. What makes this article so valuable to me is the insight into what this expert reviewer considers important, why he will accept the assignment and how he considers ethics, veracity, and nuts and bolts data to form his opinion. You’ll find in this article detailed suggestions for initial and subsequent readings, hints for the recommendations to both author and editor, and a grace and humility that makes you want this reviewer to be your judge. Importantly, he addresses the need for careful review of work submitted by other than native English speakers. While demanding extra effort, what sage advice to convey to the writer what you do understand and where you got lost in an effort to give a just hearing and prevent the loss of ‘excellent science’. That works for me in any language.

Date Created: July 21, 2009