| 1. Step by step guidelines to reviewers |
| 2. Working with editors |
| 3. How to review revised manuscripts |
| 4. For reviewing a clinical manuscript |
| 5. Reviewing Registered Reports |
For reviewing a clinical manuscript
Observe the fundamental guidelines for peer review.
There are five principles of good peer review: Content Integrity, Content Ethics, Fairness, Usefulness, and Timeliness. All sorts of manuscripts, even those with a professional or practitioner target audience, must adhere to the fundamental principles of peer review.
Considering the intended audience
A clinically focused paper should provide the most recent evidence to support wise practise decisions. As you read, make sure the author(s) are focusing on a clinical issue as opposed to a research question. You should also consider the tone to determine if it is direct and addressed to the clinician.
You should also think about whether the publication includes diagrams or tables that are helpful in therapeutic settings, as well as reference to current, pertinent studies. Finally, evaluate whether the discussion applies the data to create a fresh perspective on clinical issues and/or treatments.
Look for a structure that is ordered
Due to their busy schedules, clinical practitioners need organised access to the research they study. Consider how appealing the manuscript is as you review it.
Think about how it might be used in professional settings
It should be emphasised in the manuscript you are reading how it might affect practise. A strong paper will provide information on the potential implementation of the research or intervention. Information like clinically applicable screening tools and consumer- and patient-friendly education resources will also be included in a stronger manuscript.
Establish the case study’s components
If a case study is used, only the most important details should be covered. Although a physician may not always have the time to read a case study in its entirety, case studies can be a good tool to teach new concepts. Check to check if the essential information is presented and if any additional data has been included in the form of a figure or table (i.e., laboratory values, chronology of key events, photographs, etc.).
The patient and his or her family shouldn’t be recognised if the case study involves a real patient. Your review should make a clarification request if the manuscript is unclear about whether the patient is real or not.
Beware of potential conflicts of interest
Any conflicts of interest (COI) must be declared by the authors in the submissions. If an author receives payment from a business to write an article, conduct research, or put together a review, a conflict of interest (COI) may develop. It must also be disclosed if a third party (often referred to as “ghostwriting”) draughts an article that was submitted by another person.
Even if there isn’t a real conflict of interest, all disclosure information should be provided to the reviewers. Inform the editor if you believe something is missing and make note of it in your review. Additionally, alert the editor right away if you think you could have a conflict of interest with the manuscript.
Verify the safety of participants, both human and animal
All research must adhere to a set of moral requirements that safeguard both human subjects and experimental animals. Even if the institutional decision was to exempt the research from informed consent procedures, the authors must nonetheless add a statement to that effect in their publication. Notify the editor if the statement is absent because certain publications won’t accept research without it.