- Email: [email protected]
A Guide to Manuscript Review for The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Special Article
A Guide to Manuscript Review for The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology Krisztina I. Bajzak, MD, MS*, Barbara S. Levy, MD, and Malcolm G. Munro, MD Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada (Dr. Bajzak), Franciscan Health System, Federal Way, Washington (Dr. Levy), and University of California, Los Angeles, California (Dr. Munro).
The following comments are meant as a general aid to manuscript review, with some material specific to the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. Being invited to review a manuscript is an honor, not only because you are being recognized for your eminence in our field, but also because of the responsibility and service you provide to the Journal and scientific community. A good review is a painstaking process requiring considerable time, effort, and expertise. The reviewers are the keystone of any peer-reviewed journal, and the quality of JMIG is a direct reflection of reviewer insight and effort. Remember that journals serve as a forum for new ideas and concepts; some crash and some fly, but all deserve a fair assessment. Your comments greatly influence the decision of the senior editors on eventual acceptance or rejection; these observations are far more important than a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ vote.
B. If either the potential for bias exists or if the review cannot be completed in the time period allowed, the reviewer should decline the offer to review. 5. Provide constructive comments to guide improvements. A. Treat the manuscript as you would wish yours to be treated. B. Clearly explain the criticisms and how to resolve them.1 C. Make suggestions for revision that are possible to achieve.2 D. Criticisms should be polite, avoiding statements that are demeaning, insulting, or sarcastic.1,3 E. If disputing a point made by the author, provide justification with literature citations, if necessary. 6. If you believe that the manuscript should be rejected,
Responsibilities of the Reviewer 1. Maintain/improve scientific merit of the Journal. 2. Consider the interests of the readership. 3. Familiarize yourself with the topic, which may involve reading prior publications by the author or other related papers.1 4. Provide an unbiased, thorough, and timely assessment. A. Bias can be either positive (unfairly favoring the manuscript for publication) or negative (unfairly favoring rejection). The author has no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article. Corresponding author: Krisztina Bajzak, MD, FRCSC, FACOG, MS, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Memorial University, Office 2J557 Women’s Health, 300 Prince Phillip Drive, St. John’s, NL, A1A 4R3, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] Submitted February 28, 2008. Accepted for publication April 19, 2008. Available at www.sciencedirect.com and www.jmig.org 1553-4650/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 AAGL. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2008.04.011
A. Explain clearly the basis for your decision. B. Provide insight for authors to improve their work.4 7. Keep the content of the manuscript confidential. A. The reviewer’s access to the manuscript is privileged; the information within is the author’s exclusive property and should not be disclosed.1 B. If the reviewer wishes to ask for assistance from a colleague, permission must first be granted from the editor.2 8. Report to the editor suspicions of: A. Prior publication, deception or plagiarism.1,2 B. Ethical violations regarding the use of animals or humans. Structure of the Review: General Comments Evaluate 1. To which JMIG submission category does this manuscript best correspond?
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, Vol 15, No 4, July/August 2008
390
A. Original research, Review Articles, Case Reports, Instruments and Techniques, Special Articles, Clinical Opinion, and Case Studies, Pilot Studies. B. Canadian Task Force classification of level of evidence:5 I: Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial. II-1: Evidence from well designed controlled trials without randomization. II-2: Evidence from well designed cohort (prospective or retrospective) or case-control studies. Preferably from more than one center or research group. II-3: Evidence from comparisons between times or places with or without the intervention. Dramatic results from uncontrolled experiments (such as the results of treatment with penicillin in the 1940s) could also be included in this category. III: Opinions of respected authorities, on the basis of clinical expert committees. C. If the correct classification is unclear, please bring this to the attention of the Editor. 2. The manuscript’s importance to the field and interest to the readership. 3. Originality of the topic and methods. 4. Writing. A. As JMIG is an international journal, errors in grammar and syntax are common. When you identify areas where attention is needed, JMIG’s copyeditor will make the necessary corrections. 5. Is the study scientifically valid?2 If not, it is the reviewer’s obligation to inform both the editor and the author.
Special Categories 1. Case Report. A. Does this report pathology, diagnostic methods, or management that is truly unique or sufficiently rare? B. Does it supply useful information in a clinical setting? 2. Instruments and Techniques. A. Is this really new or a minor modification of previously described instruments or technique? B. Are claims of increased efficacy and/or safety justified by the data? 3. Pilot Study.
A. These are reports on new, promising techniques or procedures that because of small numbers and short-term follow-up will not withstand vigorous statistical analysis. A certain degree of latitude should be afforded in the evaluation process provided that the author has made it clear that this is a preliminary report of a work in progress. 4. Review Article A. Is the literature search systematically described and dated? Databases MeSH Headings Other sources B. Are the references up-to-date, chosen fairly, and pertinent? C. Is there a positive or negative bias toward competing technologies that is unsupported by the data?
Structure of the Review: Specific Comments Organized by Section Title, abstract, and keywords. 1. Is the title interesting and does it reflect the content of the manuscript accurately? 2. Are the keywords appropriate? 3. Is the abstract accurate, clear, and concise? A. Does it contain the essential information? Purpose, intervention, results, and significance. B. Are there discrepancies between the abstract and the rest of the manuscript?3 C. Can the abstract be understood without reading the manuscript?3 D. Are the conclusions as stated in the abstract justified by the data in the paper? Introduction 1. Authors provide the rationale for the study based on a review of the current literature.3 A. Contains relevant references to place the study in perspective.4 B. Establishes that an important problem exists and to date, no prior investigation has resolved the study question. 2. If Original Research, is the hypothesis clearly stated? 3. Do the authors define terms used in the remainder of the manuscript?3 4. Is it concise?
Bajzak et al.
A Guide to Manuscript Review for JMIG
Methods
391
Discussion and Conclusions
1. Is the design adequate to answer the study question?2 2. It should describe: A. Has ethical review board approval (if applicable) been obtained to assure that human or animal subjects concerns have been addressed? B. Case selection criteria, sampling techniques.4 C. If randomization was part of the protocol: What was the method of randomization? Were subjects truly randomized? Was treatment allocation blinded to the subjects? To those collecting/analyzing the results? To both (double-blinding)? D. Sample size and power calculations. E. How the data were collected or obtained for all data presented in the results. F. How outcome variables were defined and measured. G. The statistical methods used for data analysis. 3. Is the description provided of sufficient detail to permit replication of the study?2–4 4. The reviewer should identify: A. Statements that are confusing. B. Need for review by JMIG’s statistician to determine if statistical methods are appropriate.
The discussion should 1. Not introduce new data. 2. Provide a concise summary of the findings.4 3. Relate the findings to the stated hypothesis or research question.3 4. Explain if the purpose of the study was achieved; did the results answer the study question?4 5. Account for unexpected results and any differences from those reported by others.3 6. Place the present study in the context of the current literature. 7. Describe study limitations.2–4 8. Indicate any cautions to interpretation or generalization of the results.4 The author may express opinions but all conclusions must be supported by the results. There also may be suggestions for further study. Questions regarding the references: 1. Is the correct name, title, and journal information provided following the Journal’s format? 2. Has the content of the referenced articles been stated accurately?4 3. Is there plagiarism?4 4. Is there an unbiased selection, representing different sides of the argument?4 5. Are the references current? 6. Are there more references than required?
Results 1. Presentation of the results should follow a logical progression, which parallels the order of presentation of the methods.3,4 A. Population characteristics. B. Relationship between independent and dependent variables. C. Multivariate analysis. 2. Tables are used to depict numerical findings.4 A. Can they be simplified or condensed? B. Should any be omitted? 3. Figures provide visual images of trends or relationships.4 A. Is the quality sufficient? B. Should any be omitted? 4. Text should explain how to read the table, not repeat the information.4 5. Tables and figures should be clearly and accurately labeled.4 6. Material in the tables and figures should be consistent with that in the text and abstract. 7. Statistical significance should be identified, clinical significance should be commented on in the discussion.
Summary Appraisal 1. A summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.3 2. Advise if there are any outstanding issues or need for clarification. Does anything need to be deleted or changed? 3. The recommendation is submitted confidentially to the editor: A. B. C. D.
Accept: no revision is required. Accept with minor revision. Accept with major revision. Reject if: Substantial reanalysis of the data are required. Collection of new data is required. There is a substantial study design flaw. Nothing really new or of value.
The Editor will evaluate the review on the basis of the following:1 1. Thoroughness and comprehensiveness. 2. Timeliness.
392
3. Citing appropriate evidence to support comments made to author. 4. Providing constructive criticism. 5. Objectivity. 6. Clear statement to editor as to the appropriateness and priority of research for publication. Although the majority of reviewers may favor publication, one may discover a fatal flaw. Alternatively, only one of the reviewers may see the value of a poorly written paper with excellent science that can be made presentable. Once a decision has been made by the editor regarding publication, Elsevier allows you to view the decision letter and the other reviewer’s comments. This allows reviewers to: 1. Appreciate flaws they may have missed.2 2. See areas where they disagree with other reviewers but find these differences interesting.2
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, Vol 15, No 4, July/August 2008
3. Obtain feedback.2 4. Gain insight as to how to improve his or her own research.2 References 1. Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE. How to review a paper. Adv Physiol Educ. 2003;27:47–52. 2. Reidenberg JW. Improving peer review: a guide for reviewers of biomedical research. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2002;72:469–473. 3. Provenzale JM, Stanley RJ. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. J Nucl Med Technol. 2006;34:92–99. 4. Alexander GR. A guide to reviewing manuscripts. Matern Child Health J. 2005;9:113–117. 5. Woolf SH, Battista RN, Anderson GM, Logan AG, Wang E. Assessing the clinical effectiveness of preventive maneuvers: analytic principles and systematic methods in reviewing evidence and developing clinical practice recommendations. A report by the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;891–905.
A Guide to Manuscript Review for The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology Krisztina I. Bajzak, MD, MS*, Barbara S. Levy, MD, and Malcolm G. Munro, MD Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada (Dr. Bajzak), Franciscan Health System, Federal Way, Washington (Dr. Levy), and University of California, Los Angeles, California (Dr. Munro).
The following comments are meant as a general aid to manuscript review, with some material specific to the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. Being invited to review a manuscript is an honor, not only because you are being recognized for your eminence in our field, but also because of the responsibility and service you provide to the Journal and scientific community. A good review is a painstaking process requiring considerable time, effort, and expertise. The reviewers are the keystone of any peer-reviewed journal, and the quality of JMIG is a direct reflection of reviewer insight and effort. Remember that journals serve as a forum for new ideas and concepts; some crash and some fly, but all deserve a fair assessment. Your comments greatly influence the decision of the senior editors on eventual acceptance or rejection; these observations are far more important than a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ vote.
B. If either the potential for bias exists or if the review cannot be completed in the time period allowed, the reviewer should decline the offer to review. 5. Provide constructive comments to guide improvements. A. Treat the manuscript as you would wish yours to be treated. B. Clearly explain the criticisms and how to resolve them.1 C. Make suggestions for revision that are possible to achieve.2 D. Criticisms should be polite, avoiding statements that are demeaning, insulting, or sarcastic.1,3 E. If disputing a point made by the author, provide justification with literature citations, if necessary. 6. If you believe that the manuscript should be rejected,
Responsibilities of the Reviewer 1. Maintain/improve scientific merit of the Journal. 2. Consider the interests of the readership. 3. Familiarize yourself with the topic, which may involve reading prior publications by the author or other related papers.1 4. Provide an unbiased, thorough, and timely assessment. A. Bias can be either positive (unfairly favoring the manuscript for publication) or negative (unfairly favoring rejection). The author has no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article. Corresponding author: Krisztina Bajzak, MD, FRCSC, FACOG, MS, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Memorial University, Office 2J557 Women’s Health, 300 Prince Phillip Drive, St. John’s, NL, A1A 4R3, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] Submitted February 28, 2008. Accepted for publication April 19, 2008. Available at www.sciencedirect.com and www.jmig.org 1553-4650/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 AAGL. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2008.04.011
A. Explain clearly the basis for your decision. B. Provide insight for authors to improve their work.4 7. Keep the content of the manuscript confidential. A. The reviewer’s access to the manuscript is privileged; the information within is the author’s exclusive property and should not be disclosed.1 B. If the reviewer wishes to ask for assistance from a colleague, permission must first be granted from the editor.2 8. Report to the editor suspicions of: A. Prior publication, deception or plagiarism.1,2 B. Ethical violations regarding the use of animals or humans. Structure of the Review: General Comments Evaluate 1. To which JMIG submission category does this manuscript best correspond?
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, Vol 15, No 4, July/August 2008
390
A. Original research, Review Articles, Case Reports, Instruments and Techniques, Special Articles, Clinical Opinion, and Case Studies, Pilot Studies. B. Canadian Task Force classification of level of evidence:5 I: Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial. II-1: Evidence from well designed controlled trials without randomization. II-2: Evidence from well designed cohort (prospective or retrospective) or case-control studies. Preferably from more than one center or research group. II-3: Evidence from comparisons between times or places with or without the intervention. Dramatic results from uncontrolled experiments (such as the results of treatment with penicillin in the 1940s) could also be included in this category. III: Opinions of respected authorities, on the basis of clinical expert committees. C. If the correct classification is unclear, please bring this to the attention of the Editor. 2. The manuscript’s importance to the field and interest to the readership. 3. Originality of the topic and methods. 4. Writing. A. As JMIG is an international journal, errors in grammar and syntax are common. When you identify areas where attention is needed, JMIG’s copyeditor will make the necessary corrections. 5. Is the study scientifically valid?2 If not, it is the reviewer’s obligation to inform both the editor and the author.
Special Categories 1. Case Report. A. Does this report pathology, diagnostic methods, or management that is truly unique or sufficiently rare? B. Does it supply useful information in a clinical setting? 2. Instruments and Techniques. A. Is this really new or a minor modification of previously described instruments or technique? B. Are claims of increased efficacy and/or safety justified by the data? 3. Pilot Study.
A. These are reports on new, promising techniques or procedures that because of small numbers and short-term follow-up will not withstand vigorous statistical analysis. A certain degree of latitude should be afforded in the evaluation process provided that the author has made it clear that this is a preliminary report of a work in progress. 4. Review Article A. Is the literature search systematically described and dated? Databases MeSH Headings Other sources B. Are the references up-to-date, chosen fairly, and pertinent? C. Is there a positive or negative bias toward competing technologies that is unsupported by the data?
Structure of the Review: Specific Comments Organized by Section Title, abstract, and keywords. 1. Is the title interesting and does it reflect the content of the manuscript accurately? 2. Are the keywords appropriate? 3. Is the abstract accurate, clear, and concise? A. Does it contain the essential information? Purpose, intervention, results, and significance. B. Are there discrepancies between the abstract and the rest of the manuscript?3 C. Can the abstract be understood without reading the manuscript?3 D. Are the conclusions as stated in the abstract justified by the data in the paper? Introduction 1. Authors provide the rationale for the study based on a review of the current literature.3 A. Contains relevant references to place the study in perspective.4 B. Establishes that an important problem exists and to date, no prior investigation has resolved the study question. 2. If Original Research, is the hypothesis clearly stated? 3. Do the authors define terms used in the remainder of the manuscript?3 4. Is it concise?
Bajzak et al.
A Guide to Manuscript Review for JMIG
Methods
391
Discussion and Conclusions
1. Is the design adequate to answer the study question?2 2. It should describe: A. Has ethical review board approval (if applicable) been obtained to assure that human or animal subjects concerns have been addressed? B. Case selection criteria, sampling techniques.4 C. If randomization was part of the protocol: What was the method of randomization? Were subjects truly randomized? Was treatment allocation blinded to the subjects? To those collecting/analyzing the results? To both (double-blinding)? D. Sample size and power calculations. E. How the data were collected or obtained for all data presented in the results. F. How outcome variables were defined and measured. G. The statistical methods used for data analysis. 3. Is the description provided of sufficient detail to permit replication of the study?2–4 4. The reviewer should identify: A. Statements that are confusing. B. Need for review by JMIG’s statistician to determine if statistical methods are appropriate.
The discussion should 1. Not introduce new data. 2. Provide a concise summary of the findings.4 3. Relate the findings to the stated hypothesis or research question.3 4. Explain if the purpose of the study was achieved; did the results answer the study question?4 5. Account for unexpected results and any differences from those reported by others.3 6. Place the present study in the context of the current literature. 7. Describe study limitations.2–4 8. Indicate any cautions to interpretation or generalization of the results.4 The author may express opinions but all conclusions must be supported by the results. There also may be suggestions for further study. Questions regarding the references: 1. Is the correct name, title, and journal information provided following the Journal’s format? 2. Has the content of the referenced articles been stated accurately?4 3. Is there plagiarism?4 4. Is there an unbiased selection, representing different sides of the argument?4 5. Are the references current? 6. Are there more references than required?
Results 1. Presentation of the results should follow a logical progression, which parallels the order of presentation of the methods.3,4 A. Population characteristics. B. Relationship between independent and dependent variables. C. Multivariate analysis. 2. Tables are used to depict numerical findings.4 A. Can they be simplified or condensed? B. Should any be omitted? 3. Figures provide visual images of trends or relationships.4 A. Is the quality sufficient? B. Should any be omitted? 4. Text should explain how to read the table, not repeat the information.4 5. Tables and figures should be clearly and accurately labeled.4 6. Material in the tables and figures should be consistent with that in the text and abstract. 7. Statistical significance should be identified, clinical significance should be commented on in the discussion.
Summary Appraisal 1. A summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.3 2. Advise if there are any outstanding issues or need for clarification. Does anything need to be deleted or changed? 3. The recommendation is submitted confidentially to the editor: A. B. C. D.
Accept: no revision is required. Accept with minor revision. Accept with major revision. Reject if: Substantial reanalysis of the data are required. Collection of new data is required. There is a substantial study design flaw. Nothing really new or of value.
The Editor will evaluate the review on the basis of the following:1 1. Thoroughness and comprehensiveness. 2. Timeliness.
392
3. Citing appropriate evidence to support comments made to author. 4. Providing constructive criticism. 5. Objectivity. 6. Clear statement to editor as to the appropriateness and priority of research for publication. Although the majority of reviewers may favor publication, one may discover a fatal flaw. Alternatively, only one of the reviewers may see the value of a poorly written paper with excellent science that can be made presentable. Once a decision has been made by the editor regarding publication, Elsevier allows you to view the decision letter and the other reviewer’s comments. This allows reviewers to: 1. Appreciate flaws they may have missed.2 2. See areas where they disagree with other reviewers but find these differences interesting.2
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, Vol 15, No 4, July/August 2008
3. Obtain feedback.2 4. Gain insight as to how to improve his or her own research.2 References 1. Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE. How to review a paper. Adv Physiol Educ. 2003;27:47–52. 2. Reidenberg JW. Improving peer review: a guide for reviewers of biomedical research. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2002;72:469–473. 3. Provenzale JM, Stanley RJ. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. J Nucl Med Technol. 2006;34:92–99. 4. Alexander GR. A guide to reviewing manuscripts. Matern Child Health J. 2005;9:113–117. 5. Woolf SH, Battista RN, Anderson GM, Logan AG, Wang E. Assessing the clinical effectiveness of preventive maneuvers: analytic principles and systematic methods in reviewing evidence and developing clinical practice recommendations. A report by the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;891–905.