What is Peer Review?

Scholarly work of scholars must be subjected to the Peer review process for it to be accepted by their fraternity as a value addition to the discipline's state of the art of knowledge & practice that will ultimately contribute to improving quality/efficiency of health care delivery and its outcomes.

Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality and often the originality of articles for publication. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles.

Why is Peer review important?

• We depend on peer reviewers to inform publication decisions.
• Peer review also provides us and the authors of manuscripts with advice about how to improve submissions so that the published report represents the highest-quality scholarship possible.

How to perform a peer review?

You’ve received or accepted an invitation to review an article. Now the work begins. Here are some guidelines and a step by step guide to help you conduct your peer review (source: Wiley)

General and Ethical Guidelines

We follow the Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE) laid Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (click here to access its website) that requires that all peer review processes must be transparently described and well managed. Journals should provide training for editors and reviewers and have policies on diverse aspects of peer review, especially with respect to adoption of appropriate models of review and processes for handling conflicts of interest, appeals and disputes that may arise in peer review.

Step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript

When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.

The next steps include (for detailed description of the steps visit COPE guidelines for reviewers (click here):

1. First read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.
2. First-read considerations keeping in mind the following questions to form your overall impression:

• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

3. Spotting potential major flaws like

• Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
• The use of a discredited method
• Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study
• If the study uses experimental design, is there a flaw in methodology; sampling in analytical papers
• major flaws in data tables, figures or images such as Insufficient data, Statistically non-significant variations, Unclear data tables, Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions, Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

4. Concluding the first reading. After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work. This draft will still help you compose your thoughts.

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

5. Rejection after first-reading. Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper since you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.

6. Doing the second read-through. You'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content. Argument construction can be scrutinized by looking for - Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous; Any factual errors; Any invalid arguments. You may also wish to consider:

• Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

7. Doing the second read-through: Section by section guidance

• a) The introduction Sets out the argument ; Summarizes recent research related to the topic ; Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge; Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area ;Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript; Originality and Topicality Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes?; Aims It is common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims
• b) Materials & methods Sufficient detail must be given so that it should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practices like Standard guidelines were followed (e.g. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials) ; The health and safety of all participants in the study was not compromised; Ethical standards were maintained
• c)Results & Discussion - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed? start by describing in simple terms what the data show; make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit; Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research; The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected.
  
  In Discussion, Authors should describe and discuss the findings and their implications for practice. If there are gaps or inconsistencies or limitations, they should acknowledge /address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.
• d) Conclusions. This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.

8. How to Structure Your Report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.

Summary

• Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if you do so. But don't overdo it if you will be recommending rejection
• Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are
• Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge
• Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
• Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness
• State any major flaws or weaknesses and note any special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked

Major Issues

• Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
• Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are
• Are there any major presentation problems with figures & tables, language and manuscript structure - are they all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
• Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section

Minor Issues

• Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
• Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
• Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

More Resources for guidance to help you become a good reviewer:

Follow the hyperlinked subheadings (click on them with the control key pressed):

• The “Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts” (AAMC)
• Top Tips for Peer Reviewers
• Reviewing Revised Manuscripts
• Tips for Reviewing a Clinical Manuscript

Other Peer Review Guidelines

• Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts by Sense About Science (SAS)
• Peer review: An Introduction and Guide, PRC
• COPE’s Ethical guidelines for reviewers
• Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics
• The Council of Science Editors (CSE) gives guidelines on roles and responsibilities in peer review
• Reviewing Journal Manuscripts, by Charon Pierson