Keywords
editor - manuscript - reviewer
Introduction
Peer review refers to the evaluation of articles submitted to a journal by a panel
of reviewers of the same field and is vital for scientific publishing. Peer review
is a long-standing and established process that originated in the 18th century.[1] As the volume of scientific publications grows and pressure on academics to publish
increases, there is a rapid increase in the number of publications. This has been
further accelerated by the rise of publishers monetizing the process, leading to an
exponential increase in the publication of low- or marginal-quality research. Hence,
peer reviewers act as gatekeepers of science and are responsible for maintaining the
quality and integrity of the research. They are expected to be meticulous and perform
the process with diligence. Although they receive no financial compensation for this
process, peer reviewing helps in boosting one's academic career and helps stay abreast
with the latest research in the field. Most reviewers are experienced; however, with
many early career researchers joining the peer review system, it becomes essential
that there is ongoing education on the obligations and ethics related to peer review.
Types of Peer Review
The peer review process might be double blinded (where both the authors and reviewers
do not know the identity of each other), single blinded (where the reviewers know
who the authors are, but not vice versa), and open peer review (where the authors
and reviewers both know the details of each other).[2] Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest and relationships with the authors
before agreeing to review a manuscript. This is to ensure that the reviewers give
unbiased consideration to each manuscript they accept to review, based on its merits,
without regard to sex, nationality, seniority, institutional affiliation, race, and
religion of the authors. The peer review process is confidential; hence, no information
or correspondence about a manuscript should be shared with anyone outside of the peer
review process, without the explicit permission of the editor. The reviewer must also
decide whether he or she can complete the review in the allotted time. If the reviewer
thinks that he or she might not meet the deadline, the editor should be informed timely,
so that the editor can make a decision on whether to reallot the manuscript or inform
the authors that the review process might be delayed.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewer Responsibilities
The reviewer is expected to read the manuscript thoroughly and offer constructive
feedback about the manuscript in a respectful manner, to improve the quality of the
article. Most journals have an online form that may consist of several text boxes
to enter comments. It is preferable to use a structured format or a checklist, so
that no section of the manuscript is missed. The title should adequately reflect the content of the manuscript and the context of the study.
The introduction section should describe the intent of the study with a brief review of the literature.
The purpose of the manuscript should be succinctly described. The methodology should mention the study design and details about the recruitment of participants
with detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria. The reviewer needs to examine whether
the design method is suited for the hypothesis that the authors wish to test and whether
the study could be reproduced using the same methods. The methods of data acquisition and the statistical methods used for analysis need to be appraised for their appropriateness. Editors may employ
the services of a statistician for this purpose.
The results section should clearly present the results in the same order paralleling the methodology.
The reviewer also needs to scrutinize whether the results are convincing. All figures
and graphs should be labeled and referred to in the text. The graphs and tables should
appropriately reflect the results. The discussion should be concise and begin with the most important finding of the study. The results
of the current study should be compared with the results in prior available literature.
Any finding not consistent with prior common knowledge, should be mentioned and the
reason for such discordance described. The conclusion should be justified by the results found in the study. The most crucial obligation
of the peer reviewer is prevention of the publication of erroneous and/or unsubstantiated
findings that could mislead subsequent research. The reference styling should be according to the journal guidelines. If there are any important missed
references, these need to be indicated to the authors.
Summarizing the Review
The major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript should be succinctly described
in the “Comments to the Editor” section to help the editor make a final decision on
the manuscript. The comment must also include a brief description of the study and
the novel information presented, to guide the editor. It is also important that any
significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published
article or submitted manuscripts are highlighted. It is fairly possible that manuscripts
with no novelty or rationale are rejected. Also, there may be differing views between
the reviewer panels on the manuscript. So, definitive statements indicating the acceptance
or rejection of the article should not be made in the comments section. Reviewers
must avoid making statements that might be interpreted as questioning the author's
reputation.
Decision on the Manuscript
Decision on the Manuscript
While deciding on a manuscript, the reviewer should keep in mind if the manuscript
has a solid rationale, proper methodology, appropriate data analysis, and accurate
reporting of results. Reviewers usually have a choice between four options, namely,
reject, major revisions, minor revisions, and accept. Manuscripts having a poor description
of the scientific question being answered and a poor methodology could be rejected
on the first instance. If the article is scientifically acceptable, but the language
quality is poor, then a “minor revision” could be requested from the authors. It is
advisable to avoid asking for too many revisions that are either outside of the authors'
scope or not relevant to what the authors wish to convey. Asking for additional data
or analysis that is not strictly linked to the manuscript under revision, but focuses
on the potential next step of the research, only increases the timeline of the manuscript
handling process for the editor.
Revision of the Manuscript
Revision of the Manuscript
When authors are asked to make revisions, a list of changes and comments for the reviewers
are included in the resubmission. The revised version may be assessed and decision
finalized by the editors themselves, if only minor revisions were requested, or may
be returned to the original reviewers if major revisions were requested. The reviewers
are then supposed to examine if the changes were satisfactory. [Fig. 1] shows methodology followed by the production team, editors, and reviewers in handling
the manuscript.
Fig. 1 Methodology of handling the Manuscript.
Difficult Peer Reviewers
“Difficult” peer reviewers include those with unreasonable delays in the response
to accepting the invitation to review an article and delay in turning in the report
or accepting/rejecting a manuscript too easily, with minimal critique, within a short
time interval, or unfairly criticize a competitor's work, and request too much information.[3] Editors tend to avoid choosing such “difficult” reviewers for keeping the manuscript
cycle simple. It has also been critiqued that the traditional peer review is often
slow and the quality is unpredictable. We can also see papers that are published with
glaring errors and major flaws, which were not caught by the reviewers or editors.
However, unbiased experienced reviewers always provide useful critical feedback that
authors can use to improve their work before sharing it with a large audience. [Table 1] summarizes the checklist, tips, and troubleshooting methods to be used by the reviewers
to expedite the review process.[4]
[5]
Table 1
Tips and troubleshooting for article processing[4]
[5]
|
Sections
|
Reviewer
|
Troubleshooting
|
|
Instructions
|
Check type of manuscript, word limit, and various subheadings as per journal instructions
|
Production team to see carefully for all the instructions before sending it to the
editor
|
|
Plagiarism
|
Use software/tools
|
Send back to authors for editing
|
|
Conflict of interest
|
Clear statement needs to be mentioned
|
Send back to authors for addition
|
|
Ethical statement
|
Clear statement needs to be mentioned
|
Send back to authors for addition
|
|
Title
|
Should include imaging technique, patient population, and disease evaluated
|
Title can be suggested to the authors if required
Avoid diagnosis in the title in interesting cases
|
|
Abstract
|
Introduction, methods, results, and discussion subheadings
Be economical in choosing words
|
Send back to authors for editing
Production team can take action before sending to the editor
|
|
Text
|
Check for methodology, consent, study design, and flowchart of patient inclusion and
exclusion
|
Send back to authors for editing
Production team to check that the hospital name is not mentioned
|
|
Statistics
|
Appropriate statistics are applied
|
Expert statistician in the editorial board
|
|
Results
|
Should be clear, with appropriate tables, graphs, and figures (with use of arrows)
|
Send back to authors for editing
|
|
Discussion
|
Principal findings should be highlighted
Previous literature should be addressed
|
Send back to authors for editing
|
|
Limitations
|
Current study should not be criticized by the authors
Scope for future research may be addressed
|
Send back to authors for editing
|
|
Conclusion
|
Should be clear
Clearly mention clinical implication of the study
|
Send back to authors for editing
|
|
References
|
As per journal's instructions
|
Send back to authors for editing
|
|
Decision on the manuscript
|
Clear decision—revision/accept/reject
|
Take viewpoints of associate editors in doubt and difficult situation
|
Conclusion
In conclusion, peer reviewers have ethical obligations related to the responsibility
associated with appraisal, and this task requires a critical approach so that the
integrity and quality of research in the field are maintained.
