How to review a paper for
a journal
Dr Stephanie Dancer
Editor
Journal of Hospital
Infection
What is Peer Review?
• Peer review (also known as refereeing) is
the process of subjecting an author's
scholarly work, research or ideas to the
scrutiny of others who are experts in the
same field.
• It can be anonymous or it can be open,
i.e. the authors may, or may not, know who
the referee is
Source: Wikipedia
Why do we review papers for
journals?
•Helps select an article among many others that is
worthy of publication
•Usually improves an article
•Helps to detect publishing fraud
We have a duty to publish articles that are ultimately
going to make life better for everyone; reviewing a
paper is in essence a public service
You are asked to review an
original article for a journal
But is it appropriate for you?
Look at the title; does it interest you?
Read the abstract; is it within your area
of experience or expertise?
Do you feel comfortable in passing an
opinion on it?
HAVE YOU GOT TIME TO REVIEW
THE PAPER?
Evaluation of an article
•Is it new?
•Is there enough new data to interest the
readership?
•Is it readable (logical sequence of
sentences)?
•Can you understand it?
•Is the content of the article within the
appropriate section headings?
Before the paper is even accepted for review
•Manuscripts must be accompanied by a signed letter indicating that
all named authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version
•All those being acknowledged or who have provided personal
communications must agree to be mentioned
•The material is original, unpublished and has not been submitted
elsewhere
•Size of the paper (word count) does not exceed set limits
•Written in Journal style……including the references
•Any previous or pending publication of the material must be
declared (e.g.. conference presentations)
•All authors must declare their sources of funding and whether there
are any potential conflicts of interest.
Do people really copy other people’s work?
“I’ve already written the paper. I can’t understand
why the results don’t fit!”
What makes up an original scientific paper?
•Title
•Abstract:
• Introduction:
•Methods:
• Results:
•Discussion:
•Conclusion:
•Acknowledgements; Conflict of interests; Funding;
Search strategy
•References
Title page
•Title page: this should show the title, names of all authors and
the department where the work was done, as well as the contact
details of the author for correspondence.
•A running title not exceeding 40 characters and spaces should
also be provided.
•Some journals specify key words, to help with internet searches
for related papers
What’s in a title?
Abstract or Summary
•Accurately and succinctly describes the objective,
methods, results and conclusion of the paper in <250 words
•Some journals like it structured
•The summary is the most important part of a paper to
write well, since it is seen by far more people than the
paper itself. It must therefore be concise, clear and
accurately reflect the contents of the paper.
Introduction
•Sets the scene – have the authors included the most recent and
most appropriate references?
•Are you told exactly what the objectives are?
Methods
•Types of study: Prospective; retrospective; cross-over;
outbreak; laboratory-based; clinical; quasi-experimental;
blinded; double-blinded; controlled (or not); randomised (or
not); interventional; descriptive; observational; surveillance;
survey; analytical; educational; quantitative; qualitative;
systematic; population-based; cohort; local; multi-site;
compassionate; voluntary; sponsored; pilot; hospital,
healthcare or community;
• Adequately described; appropriate for objective; MIC’s of
Pestiococcus to wundermycin
•Ethics
•Statistics
Results
•Logical; sequential; comprehensive
•Results take time to go through; look for visual Figures or
Tables that illustrate the main findings. Would the text stand
alone if the Tables and Figures are removed? Do they aid
comprehension or are they just clutter? Are they properly
labelled?
•Are values correctly notated, and are they accompanied by
statistical values? If the word ‘significant’ is used, then there
should be some statistical values….whatever statistics are
reported, it should still be obvious from the reported data what
the main findings are!
A picture paints a thousand words
Imprint of a health care worker's gloved hand after examining a patient with
C.difficile. The larger yellow colonies outlining the fingers are the spore-forming
anaerobe. The patient had showered an hour before examination.
Bobulsky GS et al, CID 2007
S. aureus dispersal from nasal & perineal carriers
Solberg, Acta Med Scand Sppl.1965
100
75
1999
2000
50
2001
2002
2003
25
İm
ip
en
em
ip
ro
fl o
xa
ci
n
C
ef
ep
im
e
C
ef
tri
ax
on
e
C
ef
az
ol
in
C
M
SA
en
ta
m
ic
in
G
Am
ika
ci
n
0
Figure: Five-year changes in antimicrobial susceptibility patterns in
nosocomial strains of Escherichia coli. SAM, sulbactam-ampicillin.
Discussion
•Should not describe the meaning of life!
•Should not repeat the results again
•Should not make claims that are not fully supported by the
findings
•Can speculate….but only if it is clearly speculation
•Should make recommendations on new policy, or policy
changes, or further work and future direction of that work
And the rest….
•Conclusion (or concluding paragraph): Leaves you in no doubt;
summarise any further work or policy change
•Acknowledgements: Authors should acknowledge help received in
carrying out the work reported, e.g. supply of bacterial strains,
permission to study patients, molecular or biotyping of strains, etc
•Dedication
•Conflict of interests
•Funding
•Search strategy
The references….
•Were the most appropriate references chosen?
•Over-referenced!
•Duplicate referencing
•Insufficient
•Annotation within the text
•‘Ghost’ references
•Written in the correct style for the Journal
Reference Style
References should comply with the ‘Vancouver’ style. For a full
explanation of this see the Br Med J 1988; 286: 401–405.
Fallon RJ. Nosocomial infections with Legionella pneumophila. J
Hosp Infect 1980; 1: 299–305.
Some journals stipulate that www addresses must not be used as
references. Put them into the text or use an annotation for a
footnote.
The best way to check the reference style is to get hold of a copy of
the journal to which the paper is being submitted.
Decision time
Verdict options
•Reject
•Revise to a letter
•Revise & resubmit
•Accept after revision
•Accept as is
•Remove after acceptance
•Retract
What will help you to make a decision?
Is this paper saying anything new?
Is it going to change anything?
Is it going to be cited by others?
Is it going to ignite media interest?
Could you stand up and justify publication?
Do you actually care whether it’s published?
If the paper does not offer new material,
then it should not be published.
Why not?
One exception, would be a variation on
a theme that nicely illustrates an old
lesson worth remembering.
Open access vs. traditional
•Supposedly quicker
•The authors have to pay for the privilege
•No internet: no access
•Unlimited text; tables; figures; appendices
•Freely available to everyone
•Referees are identified
•Pre-publication history available
•Worldwide review - and the world’s comments!
What’s in it for the referee?
•Professional satisfaction
•Continued professional development
•Ideas for the future; easier to get published yourself
•Networking and teamworking
•Peer recognition
•Public service
Peer review is a courageous thing to do, because you have to put
yourself on the line professionally
Feedback!
How did you do?
What was the editorial verdict?
Author challenge!
A conflict of interest arises when a reviewer and author have a
disproportionate amount of respect (or disrespect) for each other.
Dealing with dis-grunt-led authors………
Want to be a referee?
•How do you start?
•Find an editor or mentor and ask
•Establish an area of interest and expertise
•Don’t refuse anything (at the start)
•Return a timely review
•Know your limitations
•Be kind to authors
59
/1
59
/2
59
/3
59
/4
60
/1
60
/2
60
/3
60
/4
61
/1
61
/2
61
/3
61
/4
62
/1
62
/2
62
/3
62
/4
63
/1
63
/2
63
/3
63
/4
64
/1
64
/2
64
/3
64
/4
number of weeks
Total publication time
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
volume and issue
Data courtesy of JHI Editorial Office
The ‘Black Box’ of Peer Review…………
"There seems to be no study too fragmented, no
hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too
egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too
bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too
obscure, or too contradictory, no analysis too selfserving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too
trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax
too offensive for a paper to end up in print."
Drummond Rennie, Deputy Editor, JAMA
Reviewing for JHI
•Instructions for authors:
www.editorialmanager.com/jhi/AuthInstr.html
•Instructions for referees:
www.editorialmanager.com/jhi/account/referee.html
•Is the paper appropriate for YOU?
•Is the paper appropriate for JHI?
Acknowledgements
•
•
•
•
•
Authors and potential authors!
All my assistant editors
All the referees on the JHI database
Both statistical advisors
Nichola Atherton, Editorial Assistant
Dress codes for NHS staff: January issue J Hosp Infect:
all has been revealed…………………..
Cartoon from Private Eye, 2007