- Email: [email protected]
Guidelines for review of a manuscript
Guidelines for Review of a Manuscript ROBE’RT E. ANDERSON, MD
‘l‘he thoughtful review of a manuscript is a challenging, time-consuming, sometimes unrewarding task requiring an impartial frame of reference plus a sensitivity to the egos of the authors and to the qualit) of theJoww~/. In cxmfidence. the reviewer is given the opportunitv to jud_ge the quality of what represents ;I significant expenditure of effort on the part one or se\.eral indi~iduats. In doing so, one hopes to be positive and facilitative. Simultaneously, the reviewer has the obligation to fl1tur.e readers of the,jonrtltrl to ensure that onl\, high-quality material occu1)ies the pages of /ll~rA,, Pathology. .I‘he above, preamble suggests that the I-eviewel should appro;ich this task with several thoughts zlwrly in mind:
but one must take a detached attitude and stick to the issue: Does this manuscript add to our understanding of the subject at hand? E. CInritv--Be clear! Imagine how it feels to be criticized unclearlv for lack of clarit\. ‘1 ry to make your review as clear and crisp as p&sible. t‘he ,iuttior \<4ll read vour review with manv of’ the same biases you had when you first looked at the manuscript. ‘I‘JJXB, poor grammar, etc. tend to cause the reader to downgrade the quality of the review. ,4 poorqualit) review not only mahes the author. suspicious of‘ the competence of‘ the reviewer, but also. to some measure, subtracts from his/her ,rctimation of the /OMVM~. F. P~c;mfi/llur.s--~I‘he editor must make it c teal when he expects the review returned and the rcviewel must comply. l’articularly in casrs in IAhich the rrview indicates a need for further lvorli, it is critical to get these comments back to the author- as quickl) LS possible. As you well know. it is ego-deflating. as ~~11 as aggravatmJ~~ to learn that one nlust go back and perform addltlonal analyses, retrit.ve more infi)rmation, perform new statistic-at analyses. etc. If months have passed during the rr\,iew process, these negative feelings are multiplied almost logarittimicallv.
of
A. Ahlit! to coru/htY the ~P~G~70-Fl‘his task requires significant expertise and the requisite time to do it well. C&A reviewers read a manuscript at least two and often many more times. If you are lacking in time or texprrtise you will do all concerned. including yctul.self’. ;t litvor 1~~returning it forthwith to the Editorial Office:. B. (:om~rr\.\ion-~~s indicated above. most nlan~lscripts represent a significant investment of time and effort on the part of the authors. In evaluating these eff’orts, and in providin! comments that will It is important to atbe passe~l OII to thr authors. tempt tc.) be as positive as possible. Hurtful comments may provide a triumphal moment for the caustic r&wet-, but also have the potential of seriously discouraging an investigator. C. A ~ctso~rahl~ 1~7d of sk$ticism-It is important to address the task at hand with a “show me” attitude. The objectives of the study should be readily ap parent .antl the experimental approach should be comprehensible to the average reader. It should not he r~~~~sary to spend an inordinate amount of time poring over tables and figures in order to glean the take-home message. D. A non-hind fcttjk&--It is critical to shelve one’s own ego during the review process. J’ou have been selected as a reviewer because of your perceived expertise in the field. This often indicates that you have worked and published in the area. As a conit is not unusual to be asked to review a sequence, manuscript that casts doubt or even disagrees with your previous personal observations. This is not the venue to rehash your earlier thinking on the subject or 10 light some internal fires that serve to unfairly bias you against the author. It is totlgh to do,
With the above in mind, an early clec,isioll needs to be made 1,) the reviewer with respect to the acceptability of the manuscript. This decision is hased on a number of factors. including (a) is therv an experimental question and is it important; (b) does the work improve our understanding regarding this question; (c) is the experimental approach appropriate; and (d) are the data analyzed and presented in appropriate fashion. (;enerally, this assessmtmt tan by made with a single careful reading; if the ;mswer is affix-mative, then one’s approach is to “make a good presentation even better.” On rare occasions, a manuscript is received that needs no modifications. In such a case, the reviewer should not force suggestions for change merely to have something to sa!. If. on the other hand. a negative evaluation is contemplatetl. a rereview will be necessary in order- to doc~ument carefully the reasons for making this recommendation. Particularly with authors whose first language is other than English. it is helpful to pav particular attention to problems in wording versus I rue problems in the experimental design and analvsis
359
HUMAN PATHOLOGY Issues
elude
that often the following:
warrant
specific
attention
Volume 21, No. 4 (April 1990)
in-
1. Is there a valid question asked and is it important? 2. Are the observations well described and illustrated? 3. Are the results adequately supported statistically? and materials clearly de4. Are the methods scribed? introduce the objectives 5. Does the introduction of the study?
360
6. Are the conclusions reasonable? 7. Are unresolved issues addressed candidly in the discussion? 8. Are the references appropriately complete and current? Are the key papers included! 9. Does the abstract cover the critical aspects of the study? 10. Are the figures and tables all necessary and are they arranged optimally? 11. Do the photographs adequately convey the data being presented? 12. Is the quality of photographs satisfactory? Good
luck.
‘l‘he thoughtful review of a manuscript is a challenging, time-consuming, sometimes unrewarding task requiring an impartial frame of reference plus a sensitivity to the egos of the authors and to the qualit) of theJoww~/. In cxmfidence. the reviewer is given the opportunitv to jud_ge the quality of what represents ;I significant expenditure of effort on the part one or se\.eral indi~iduats. In doing so, one hopes to be positive and facilitative. Simultaneously, the reviewer has the obligation to fl1tur.e readers of the,jonrtltrl to ensure that onl\, high-quality material occu1)ies the pages of /ll~rA,, Pathology. .I‘he above, preamble suggests that the I-eviewel should appro;ich this task with several thoughts zlwrly in mind:
but one must take a detached attitude and stick to the issue: Does this manuscript add to our understanding of the subject at hand? E. CInritv--Be clear! Imagine how it feels to be criticized unclearlv for lack of clarit\. ‘1 ry to make your review as clear and crisp as p&sible. t‘he ,iuttior \<4ll read vour review with manv of’ the same biases you had when you first looked at the manuscript. ‘I‘JJXB, poor grammar, etc. tend to cause the reader to downgrade the quality of the review. ,4 poorqualit) review not only mahes the author. suspicious of‘ the competence of‘ the reviewer, but also. to some measure, subtracts from his/her ,rctimation of the /OMVM~. F. P~c;mfi/llur.s--~I‘he editor must make it c teal when he expects the review returned and the rcviewel must comply. l’articularly in casrs in IAhich the rrview indicates a need for further lvorli, it is critical to get these comments back to the author- as quickl) LS possible. As you well know. it is ego-deflating. as ~~11 as aggravatmJ~~ to learn that one nlust go back and perform addltlonal analyses, retrit.ve more infi)rmation, perform new statistic-at analyses. etc. If months have passed during the rr\,iew process, these negative feelings are multiplied almost logarittimicallv.
of
A. Ahlit! to coru/htY the ~P~G~70-Fl‘his task requires significant expertise and the requisite time to do it well. C&A reviewers read a manuscript at least two and often many more times. If you are lacking in time or texprrtise you will do all concerned. including yctul.self’. ;t litvor 1~~returning it forthwith to the Editorial Office:. B. (:om~rr\.\ion-~~s indicated above. most nlan~lscripts represent a significant investment of time and effort on the part of the authors. In evaluating these eff’orts, and in providin! comments that will It is important to atbe passe~l OII to thr authors. tempt tc.) be as positive as possible. Hurtful comments may provide a triumphal moment for the caustic r&wet-, but also have the potential of seriously discouraging an investigator. C. A ~ctso~rahl~ 1~7d of sk$ticism-It is important to address the task at hand with a “show me” attitude. The objectives of the study should be readily ap parent .antl the experimental approach should be comprehensible to the average reader. It should not he r~~~~sary to spend an inordinate amount of time poring over tables and figures in order to glean the take-home message. D. A non-hind fcttjk&--It is critical to shelve one’s own ego during the review process. J’ou have been selected as a reviewer because of your perceived expertise in the field. This often indicates that you have worked and published in the area. As a conit is not unusual to be asked to review a sequence, manuscript that casts doubt or even disagrees with your previous personal observations. This is not the venue to rehash your earlier thinking on the subject or 10 light some internal fires that serve to unfairly bias you against the author. It is totlgh to do,
With the above in mind, an early clec,isioll needs to be made 1,) the reviewer with respect to the acceptability of the manuscript. This decision is hased on a number of factors. including (a) is therv an experimental question and is it important; (b) does the work improve our understanding regarding this question; (c) is the experimental approach appropriate; and (d) are the data analyzed and presented in appropriate fashion. (;enerally, this assessmtmt tan by made with a single careful reading; if the ;mswer is affix-mative, then one’s approach is to “make a good presentation even better.” On rare occasions, a manuscript is received that needs no modifications. In such a case, the reviewer should not force suggestions for change merely to have something to sa!. If. on the other hand. a negative evaluation is contemplatetl. a rereview will be necessary in order- to doc~ument carefully the reasons for making this recommendation. Particularly with authors whose first language is other than English. it is helpful to pav particular attention to problems in wording versus I rue problems in the experimental design and analvsis
359
HUMAN PATHOLOGY Issues
elude
that often the following:
warrant
specific
attention
Volume 21, No. 4 (April 1990)
in-
1. Is there a valid question asked and is it important? 2. Are the observations well described and illustrated? 3. Are the results adequately supported statistically? and materials clearly de4. Are the methods scribed? introduce the objectives 5. Does the introduction of the study?
360
6. Are the conclusions reasonable? 7. Are unresolved issues addressed candidly in the discussion? 8. Are the references appropriately complete and current? Are the key papers included! 9. Does the abstract cover the critical aspects of the study? 10. Are the figures and tables all necessary and are they arranged optimally? 11. Do the photographs adequately convey the data being presented? 12. Is the quality of photographs satisfactory? Good
luck.