Murad Alam1. 1. Departments of *Dermatology, †Otolaryngology, and ‡Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peer review of submitted manuscripts is widely perceived as a cornerstone of assuring quality in academic journals. However, in medical school and beyond, dermatologic surgeons receive minimal instruction in the methodology of critically reviewing new literature. OBJECTIVE: To guide new or less experienced reviewers through the steps of assessing a manuscript for the journal. To clarify the most important elements of the review and to discuss common pitfalls and their avoidance. METHODS: A stepwise template was suggested on how to review manuscripts. RESULTS: An algorithmic approach to reviewing a paper can demystify the process, increase efficiency, and reduce the likelihood that important elements of the review will be omitted or overlooked. Nonetheless, this recommended approach is a starting point, and individual reviewers would be expected to modify it to reflect their particular preferences and to adapt it to specific papers. CONCLUSION: Reviewing a manuscript for the journal is amenable to a simple algorithmic approach. Encouraging recent graduates and others to review for the journal by clarifying the process can further assist the editorial staff in selecting the best manuscripts and improving these before publication.
BACKGROUND: Peer review of submitted manuscripts is widely perceived as a cornerstone of assuring quality in academic journals. However, in medical school and beyond, dermatologic surgeons receive minimal instruction in the methodology of critically reviewing new literature. OBJECTIVE: To guide new or less experienced reviewers through the steps of assessing a manuscript for the journal. To clarify the most important elements of the review and to discuss common pitfalls and their avoidance. METHODS: A stepwise template was suggested on how to review manuscripts. RESULTS: An algorithmic approach to reviewing a paper can demystify the process, increase efficiency, and reduce the likelihood that important elements of the review will be omitted or overlooked. Nonetheless, this recommended approach is a starting point, and individual reviewers would be expected to modify it to reflect their particular preferences and to adapt it to specific papers. CONCLUSION: Reviewing a manuscript for the journal is amenable to a simple algorithmic approach. Encouraging recent graduates and others to review for the journal by clarifying the process can further assist the editorial staff in selecting the best manuscripts and improving these before publication.
Authors: Catherine M Clase; Elizabeth Dicks; Rachel Holden; Manish M Sood; Adeera Levin; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; Linda W Moore; Susan J Bartlett; Aminu K Bello; Clara Bohm; Darren Bridgewater; Josee Bouchard; Dylan Burger; Juan Jesús Carrero; Maoliosa Donald; Meghan Elliott; Maya J Goldenberg; Meg Jardine; Ngan N Lam; W Joy Maddigan; François Madore; Thomas A Mavrakanas; Amber O Molnar; G V Ramesh Prasad; Claudio Rigatto; Karthik K Tennankore; Elena Torban; Laurel Trainor; Christine A White; Sunny Hartwig Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2022-05-01