Tips and guidelines for being a good peer reviewer

Publication is the key means by which science spreads. The purpose of scientific journals is to publish novel and quality articles. The editors of the journals evaluate the content of the manuscripts by submitting them to a process called «peer review», considered today the gold standard to guarantee the adequate publication of scientific articles. A well-crafted and critical peer-review report is a treasure for both authors and editors. In the present manuscript we will examine the key aspects of the peer review process. We will begin by explaining what exactly this process consists of and since when it has existed, and then clarifying why it is so important. Then we will argue why we should want to be reviewers of scientific papers. We will then review what are the fundamental rules to carry out a good review of a manuscript and what aspects of it we should focus on. Later we will see what format a peer review report should have and how to write its different sections, as well as the options for its final resolution. We will pay special attention to commenting on the ethical aspects and the most frequent errors that are made in the evaluation of manuscripts. Finally, we will recognize what the fundamental limitations of peer review are, and we will end by proposing some suggestions for their improvement. Our ultimate goal is to stimulate researchers -and authors- to go one step further and undertake the challenge of being peer reviewers of scientific manuscripts.

Bibliometric Analysis: Bridging Informatics With Science

Bibliometric analysis represents a new tool for classifying and quantitatively assessing bibliographic material (publications, citations, authors, institutions, etc) of a scientific discipline. Is a computer-assisted review and, therefore, it should follow the methodology of a systematic review. These analyses download bibliographic data from electronic databases analyzing them and extracting several indicators (such as the h-index). Analysis can be enhanced by adding scientific maps using specific software. These analyses are increasingly accepted in the medical literature to identify the most influential papers/authors/institutions on a given topic. During the last decade, there is a remarkable increase in the number of published bibliometric analysis articles.

All journals should include a correspondence section

Letters to the editor can provide useful scientific information and evaluation of published work as well as acting as an additional level of peer review. Furthermore, letters are good reading material, especially if they involve a debate between authors. Finally, letters are relatively short. Therefore, inexperienced career researchers can use such an opportunity to practice putting together a cogent argument. However, it is far from an ideal situation if letters are the only (or main) type of article on which to base an academic career.

Diabetic Foot Management: Education of Vascular Surgeons Remains a Priority

Diabetic foot ulcers remain difficult to heal, especially in the setting of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Vascular surgeons are very important members of the multidisciplinary foot care team. To make the most of their potential, adequate education of vascular trainees on diabetic PAD remains a priority. This should include not only endovascular therapies but also open surgical approaches. Evaluation of trainees' skills, as well as of the educational program itself, is also desirable. Finally, simulation-based training may prove a useful educational tool.

Alice through the Looking-glass: Can We Improve Peer Review?

Peer review is an essential component for the evaluation of material submitted to medical and scientific journals. This process usually involves single blind, double blind or open peer review. In the present Editorial, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these peer review options. Our comments are influenced by our experience as Editors-in-Chief. We also outline new developments in the field of peer review.

A scoping review on biomedical journal peer review guides for reviewers

BACKGROUND

Peer review is widely used in academic fields to assess a manuscript's significance and to improve its quality for publication. This scoping review will assess existing peer review guidelines and/or checklists intended for reviewers of biomedical journals and provide an overview on the review guidelines.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) databases were searched for review guidelines from the date of inception until February 19, 2021. There was no date restriction nor article type restriction. In addition to the database search, websites of journal publishers and non-publishers were additionally hand-searched.

RESULTS

Of 14,633 database publication records and 24 website records, 65 publications and 14 websites met inclusion criteria for the review (78 records in total). From the included records, a total of 1,811 checklist items were identified. The items related to Methods, Results, and Discussion were found to be the highly discussed in reviewer guidelines.

CONCLUSION

This review identified existing literature on peer review guidelines and provided an overview of the current state of peer review guides. Review guidelines were varying by journals and publishers. This calls for more research to determine the need to use uniform review standards for transparent and standardized peer review.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

The protocol for this study has been registered at Research Registry (www.researchregistry.com): reviewregistry881.

A guide to peer reviewing for Spinal Cord

Peer reviewing is a key mechanism underlying science publishing, but during their graduate training clinicians and researchers are unlikely to be taught the skill. This paper sets forth the art of peer reviewing in general, and the types of reviews that are most useful to the Editors of Spinal Cord (SC). The topics addressed are: the SC editorial process; the role of the referee; review process steps; the content and language of a review; and resources available to peer reviewers.

Review Article: The Flagship of Evidence-Based Medicine

Global literature is ever-growing and physicians rely on it for evidence-based decision making. Review articles summarize available literature and provide the current state of knowledge on a given topic. Various review types exist, the main ones being narrative and systematic reviews. The former are based on studies selected in an undefined manner. They express the authors’ opinions of a given topic, lack a systematic search, and are prone to bias. By contrast, the latter represent an unbiased synthesis of knowledge on a particular topic and attempt to offer all relevant evidence. A systematic review may include a meta-analysis, which combines the results of quantitative studies using statistical techniques to provide a more precise summary of the evidence. With a dramatic increase in literature complexity, new “next-generation” types of reviews emerged to improve the quality of evidence synthesis: network meta-analysis, umbrella review, and meta-analysis of individual patient data, among others. Finally, scoping reviews are a special type, conducted as precursors to systematic reviews aiming to reveal specific knowledge gaps in a given subject.

Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers

The peer review process is essential for quality checks and validation of journal submissions. Although it has some limitations, including manipulations and biased and unfair evaluations, there is no other alternative to the system. Several peer review models are now practised, with public review being the most appropriate in view of the open science movement. Constructive reviewer comments are increasingly recognised as scholarly contributions which should meet certain ethics and reporting standards. The Publons platform, which is now part of the Web of Science Group (Clarivate Analytics), credits validated reviewer accomplishments and serves as an instrument for selecting and promoting the best reviewers. All authors with relevant profiles may act as reviewers. Adherence to research reporting standards and access to bibliographic databases are recommended to help reviewers draft evidence-based and detailed comments.