ROLE OF THE REVIEWER ESSA KAZIM ROLE OF

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER ESSA KAZIM

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER Refereeing or peer-review has the advantages of: – Identification of suitable scientific material for publication. – Correction of scientific and/or grammatical deficiencies before publication – Prevent the publication of papers of poor scientific quality or those with errors – Assist in the education of authors and improve writing skills The reviewer thus acts as the custodian of the scientific standard of a journal

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER Reviews involve: • Editorial review • Peer review

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER Editorial review • Editorial office ensures that the MS has been submitted in line with ‘Information for Authors’ (format review) • All authors have approved publication • Copyright transfers are included • Figures and tables are in publishable formats • Sources of funding are mentioned If the submission is obviously of poor quality, the editor may convey this to the author without peer review

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER Peer Review • Elevates the professional status of a journal • Reviewers are chosen for their area of expertise which may be very ‘narrow’ e. g. MS may be reviewed by a haematologist with an interest in thrombosis and not just a general haematologist.

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER Peer Review • At least two and preferably three reviewers are used for each MS • Reviewers are generally anonymous to authors; double anonymity is used by some journals. • To avoid conflict of interest, reviewers should not be from the same clinical/research units as authors • Reviewers’ comments are documented and are confidential

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER REVIEW ELEMENTS • • Appropriateness Originality Ethics Study design Ø Study group Ø Control group • Data Ø Measurements and data presentation Ø Analysis • References

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER REVIEW ELEMENTS Appropriateness to readership – Is the subject matter specialised or of a general nature – Is it relevant to the projected readership – Is the topic addressing a healthcare issue pertinent to the region e. g. diabetes

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER REVIEW ELEMENTS Originality – Are the findings new – Is anything new added to the existing literature on the subject – Is new regional information on a known subject presented, adding to geographic epidemiology

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER REVIEW ELEMENTS Ethical considerations – Is there a conflict of interest e. g. sponsorship by pharmaceutical firm – Approval by hospital ethics committee – Do the figures have any patient identifying features e. g. name, registration number etc.

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER REVIEW ELEMENTS Appropriateness of study design Study group: – Exclusion/inclusion criteria – Source of subjects – Is the sample group representative of a wider group for definitive conclusions to be drawn – Description of sampling methods

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER REVIEW ELEMENTS Appropriateness of study design Control group: – Was a control group used. If not, why not? – Is the control group adequate in number and features – Was data collection from the control group similar to that of the study group

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER REVIEW ELEMENTS Appropriateness of study design Study design – Was the design suitable for the stated objectives – Is there a comprehensive description of the method, including any treatment used – Was the study period of a suitable duration to draw adequate conclusions

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER REVIEW ELEMENTS Measurements and presentation of data – Description, validity and reliability – Was observation blinded, where relevant – Are the tables well designed or are they complicated, with unnecessary detail and/or duplication in text – Are the figures clear/duplication in text

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER REVIEW ELEMENTS Analysis and interpretation of data – Are the statistical methods described and are they appropriate – Are the limitations of the study noted and taken into account – Allowance for confounding factors – Are the conclusions justified – Alternative explanations for the conclusions – Clinical correlation for results, if appropriate

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER REVIEW ELEMENTS References – Are they from scientific journals, books etc – Are the statements supported by references – Are the references recent or ‘dated’ – ‘Dated’ references may be unsuitable in some instances as they may be invalidated by more recent publications

ROLE OF THE REVIEWER Reviewer’s comments to the editor: – Accept the MS as it is – Accept, subject to editor’s revision – Accept, subject to author revision – Reject