Transcript How to Review (…and Read …and Write) Scientific Papers

How to Review (…and Read…and Write)
Scientific Papers
Peer Review
Background
• Editor, Journal of Vascular and Interventional
Radiology (since January 2006)
• Have served as a reviewer for JVIR, AJR
(including editorial board), Journal of Clinical
Ultrasound, Journal of Interventional Radiology
Reviewer’s Role
• The reviewers are extremely important to any
journal.
• Arbiters of quality of submitted manuscripts
• Role twofold
• Does the manuscript merit publication?
• Advisory role: Provide constructive criticism (help make a
manuscript better)
Provenzale and Stanley, AJR 2005
Does a manuscript merit publication?
• Accept
• Rare decision, nearly every manuscript could use some work
• Accept with Revision
• If authors address queries and criticisms, will generally be accepted
• [Conditional Acceptance] (Editor only)
• Will accept but authors MUST address certain key issues
• Reject Request Resubmission
• Not suitable now, and may not ever be, but could be worth a second
look--undergoes repeat formal peer review
• Reject
• Poor science, report without value, redundant or duplicate
publication, “me too” reports, clear bias, too esoteric even for lab
rats, or good/great paper but wrong audience
Peer Review
• Caveat: the tips and suggestions I will
bring up are based on my own personal
preferences and biases, and these may
not be applicable to all journals
Common Sense Rules
• Be polite. Avoid insults, sarcasm, demeaning
statements (the Editor will generally remove
these anyway)
• If there is something that the reviewer feels
needs to be transmitted to the Editor but not
the authors, there is generally a “comments
to Editor” box
• Direct comments to “the authors” or even
better “the manuscript” (I avoid “you”
sentences)
Provenzale and Stanley, AJR 2005
Systematic Approach
• To what category does the manuscript belong?
• Clinical Study
• Laboratory Study
• Brief Report
• Letter to the Editor
• Other (special communication, standards, editorial,
etc.)
• Is there potential for reviewer bias (positive or
negative)?
• Does the reviewer have sufficient expertise for this
topic? nb: to me this is important, but NOT critical
• Does the reviewer have time to do the review?
Provenzale and Stanley, AJR 2005
How to “Read” a Manuscript
• No set right answer, depends on your style
• Many do a quick survey (e.g. read abstract,
skim remainder) to start to address the
following generaly questions
• Why are the authors reporting this? What was their
intent?
• Is the topic of interest to readers of the journal?
• Does the study try to answer important questions
that have not been answered adequately?
Provenzale and Stanley, AJR 2005
How to Review A Manuscript
•
•
•
•
•
As an Editor I prefer a structured, numbered approach
Highlight very important points with asterisks
[Brief Summary]
General comments
Section by Section Review (Title, Abstract, Introduction,
M&M, Results, Discussion/Conclusion, Tables,
Figures/Illustrations/Graphs and Legends, References)
• Summary: Why you feel this article should be
accepted/revised/rejected
**Provenzale and Stanley, AJR 2005
Peer Review
•
The most important criteria are
1. The importance of the study or report
to the existing body of knowledge
2. The scientific merit of the study
The Scientific Manuscript
Section by Section
•
•
•
•
(Title)
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
• Combined with Results for Brief Reports
•
•
•
•
•
Results
Discussion
Figures/Graphs
Tables
References
Provenzale and Stanley, AJR 2005
The Scientific Manuscript
Title
• Should truly reflect purpose and findings of
study
• Not too long
• Watch abbreviations
The Scientific Manuscript
Abstract
• The summary of the manuscript’s most important features
• For many readers, this is the ONLY part that they will read.
• Therefore, the abstract should be able to stand alone as a
summary of the work
• Ideally, should contain a well-articulated purpose and
hypothesis (not just “report our experience with…”)
The Scientific Manuscript
Abstract
•
•
•
•
Purpose (avoid vague objectives)
Materials and Methods
Results
Conclusion
The Scientific Manuscript
Abstract
• There should be no major discrepancies between the
body of the paper and the Abstract!
• The most important features of each section should
be the focus of the Abstract
• There are word count limits to the Abstract for each
type of manuscript--should not be overly lengthy
The Scientific Manuscript
Abstract
• Purpose should mirror end of Introduction
• Actual data with P values should be included in Results as
appropriate
• Conclusions should be justified by and follow directly from
Methods and Results and NOT simply be a reiteration of
Results
• Conclusions should not be overstated, esp. on the basis of a
small number of patients and observations
The Scientific Manuscript
Introduction
• Explains, via background information, why the
authors bothered to perform the study
• Should be brief (save rest for Discussion)
• What is the rationale of the study?
• Show that an important problem or question exists
• Show that prior published work has failed to adequately
address the problem
• What are the goals of the study?
• Introduce any unusual terms used for the study
• Make sure all data/claims referenced
The Scientific Manuscript
Materials and Methods
• The “blueprint” of the study (What subjects were
included? How was the study performed?)
• Should give sufficient information to allow another
investigator to repeat the study
• Also provides an outline of statistical methods
used, if appropriate
• Give definitions (e.g. outcomes measures such as
patency results)
The Scientific Manuscript
Materials and Methods
• Subsection headings may be useful for major papers
(Patient group, technique, study endpoints and definitions,
statistical analysis)
• Patient group: demographics, comorbidities, proof of
disease, etc. Technically, for prospective studies, should be
in Results, but I (and many others) prefer this in the M&M
anyway for readability/clarity/flow of the paper.
• Make sure numbers add up (here and in results)
• IRB approval or equivalent (or statement that it is not
necessary at the authors’ institution for this type of study)
The Scientific Manuscript
Materials and Methods
• Details of imaging techniques may be important; routine
steps of procedures generally aren’t, but be sure there is no
question regarding major technical aspects esp. if unusual
or important
• There should be corporate attribution for devices, etc.
• Complications should be defined (ideally categorized per
SIR standards)
• Stats: Worthwhile to develop a working knowledge of
important statistical tests
The Scientific Manuscript
Results
• Should follow directly from the Materials and
Methods section (the Materials and Methods
section should tell what types of Results are to be
looked for); no “new” or unanticipated results
should be presented that don’t follow from the M&M
• The order of presentation of results should parallel
the order of presentation of the methods
• Section headings may be useful if lots of complex
data
The Scientific Manuscript
Results
• Follow guidelines for significant figures
• Patency and survival data should be done by
Kaplan Meier analysis
The Scientific Manuscript
Discussion
• State whether hypothesis was verified or proven untrue, or (if
no hypothesis) what questions were answered or why the
report is important
• Should comment as to whether the results are in line with
prior studies. If not, an attempt should be made to explain the
discrepancies.
• Review only those parts of the medical literature relevant to
the study.
• Note (preferably in a separate paragraph) limitations of the
study
• Should have a concluding paragraph that summarizes the
study
The Scientific Manuscript
Figures and Graphs
• Should illustrate important features of the methods and
results
• Many authors have trouble limiting figures to those essential
for the understanding of the MS--should ask yourself
whether each figure necessary
• Watch for HIPAA issues/patient identifiers
• Decide also whether color necessary (color expensive in
print, we can choose color on web, gray scale in print for
JVIR)
• Should be highest possible quality and should have figure
legends that adequately explain the meaning (supplemented
by appropriate arrows)
The Scientific Manuscript
Tables
• A Table summarizes complex collections of data in
order to make it more understandable and in order
to allow the reader to more easily make
comparisons
• Tables are not necessary if the information can be
adequately presented in the text (the latter is
preferable)
The Scientific Manuscript
References
• Should be timely, accurate, and should follow the journal
citation format
• Should support claims made in the text of the manuscript
• The support for the study should be based on evidence that
is as strong as possible
• Evidence given from articles should be cited accurately--in
other words, the results of other articles should not be
misinterpreted to buttress the authors’ case
• Be sure in journal format
Why Do Articles Get Accepted?
• The study is considered timely and relevant to a
current problem
• The manuscript is well-written, logical, and easy to
comprehend
• The study is well designed with appropriate
methodology
Bordage G, Acad Med 2001
Why Do Articles Get Rejected?
• Incomplete or insufficiently described statistics
• Overinterpretation of the results (e.g. stating that a
technique is “safe and effective” on the basis of a single
case report)
• Suboptimal or insufficiently described means of measuring
data (again, could another investigator duplicate the study?)
• Sample population too small or biased
• Text difficult to follow (grammar/syntax vs. complex, highly
specialized language insufficiently explained for readers)
• Insufficient problem statement
Bordage G, Acad Med 2001
How to Get Your Paper Published
•
•
Assuming that you have a good study, a
number of other steps can be taken to help
improve the likelihood of acceptance
Some of these are remarkably easy to
implement (yet even more remarkably, often
ignored by authors)
How To Get Your Paper Published
Tip 1
• Highlight the Importance of the
Manuscript
How To Get Your Paper Published
Highlight the Importance of the Manuscript
• Each acceptable study or report should add
to the literature in an important and unique
way. Don’t make the reviewer guess this.
How To Get Your Paper Published
Highlight the Importance of the Manuscript
• Focus the Introduction on the background leading
to the study and the report, and finish it with a clear
statement of purpose, ideally a hypothesis.
• Focus the Discussion on an explanation of why the
conclusions and the purpose served by the
manuscript are valuable, and place this explanation
in the context of pre-existing literature (Does it
corroborate existing literature, perhaps making
certain conclusions more firm? Does it refute
existing literature? If so, why?)
How To Get Your Paper Published
Highlight the Importance of the Manuscript
• Avoid direct statements of primacy (“This is the first report
of…” or “This has not previously been described…”).
• Statements of primacy are difficult to sustain.
• Statements of primacy add little to a manuscript otherwise
deemed worthy of publication.
• Statements of primacy sometimes border on the absurd
(“This is the first description of percutaneous biopsy of a
left patellar angiosarcoma in a 41 year old commercial
fisherman”)
How To Get Your Paper Published
Highlight the Importance of the Manuscript
• Avoid statements of purpose that simply reiterate
what you are describing. E.g. “We describe our
experience with the Ultimate Stent”. Add a
statement that describes why the reader should
care about your experience with the “Ultimate
Stent”
How To Get Your Paper Published
Tip 2
• Follow Directions!
How To Get Your Paper Published
Follow Directions
• Each scientific journal has very clearly articulated
“Instructions to Authors”
• Such instructions detail the types of articles a
journal considers, the acceptable format for such
articles, and the content requirements for the
individual sections of the articles.
Types of ManuscriptsJVIR publishes several types of articles, each of which has
a distinct format. Clinical and Laboratory Investigations are the central focus of
the Journal and are based on original clinical or experimental studies. The
complete format is described below. Brief Reports include descriptions of a new
or modified interventional procedure or device and small clinical studies or case
reports. A brief one paragraph abstract (less than 100 words) should be included.
In general, limit the paper to six pages of text, 15 references, and no more than
eight figure parts. Review Articles are generally invited by the Editor. Specific
instructions are provided at the time of invitation. Letters to the Editor can be
used to offer commentary on any material published in JVIR. Letters may also be
used to convey material of more general interest to the interventional radiology
community. On occasion, the Editor may offer such space for submitted case
reports that do not receive high enough priority for publication as such. Letters
should be no longer than three pages with no more than four references. Only one
figure (with no more than four figure parts) can be submitted. Letters to the Editor
are accepted for publication at the discretion of the Editor and may be copyedited
for content and length.
Manuscript PreparationThe preferred word processing program
is Microsoft Word. Manuscripts must be written with 12 point font,
double-spaced throughout (including tables, references, and figure
legends), and have at least 3 cm margins. The text should be
ragged right (no right justification). Embedded instructions (eg,
italics, underlines, boldface) should not be used or kept to a
minimum Do not use coding for centering. Insert only one space
after punctuation marks. Sequential page numbering should begin
with the text. The order of sections is Abstract, Text,
Acknowledgements, References, Tables, and Figure Legends. To
ensure blinded peer-review, no direct references to the author(s)
or institution of origin should be made anywhere in the text of
figures.
How To Get Your Paper Published
Follow Directions
• “Instructions to Authors” also frequently provide
additional suggestions for enhancing the value of
submitted manuscripts
• For example: JVIR lists (and gives access to)
published reporting standards that, if relevant to
the paper, should be followed.
Reporting Standards: In order to assure consistency in reporting of
results of clinical research, the Society of Interventional Radiology has
developed a number of reporting standards documents that authors
should follow when submitting manuscripts for consideration. Links to
these documents are given below. Adherence to relevant reporting
standards will be taken into account in the review process.
Haskal, Ziv J., Rees, Chet R., Ring, Ernest J., Saxon, Richard,
Sacks, David Reporting Standards for Transjugular Intrahepatic
Portosystemic Shunts J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003 14: 419S-426
How To Get Your Paper Published
Tip 3
• Make the manuscript as “readable” as possible
How To Get Your Paper Published
Make the Manuscript Readable
• Reviewers are only human, and errors in grammar, syntax, and spelling
are at the very least frustrating and distracting to the reviewer.
• In extreme cases, such errors can confuse the message of even the
most scientifically sound study.
• Also, reviewers may assume (rightly or wrongly) that such errors are
reflective not only of the writing of the manuscript, but the way the study
itself was performed.
• Abbreviations should be explained at first “callout” in text
• Avoid unconventional abbreviations (abbreviations place the burden of
remembering what they stand for on the reader, and can be extremely
irritating to the reader)
• Note: as a reviewer, your choice to point these out, but if there are many,
many such errors simply state--multiple errors of grammar and syntax
How To Get Your Paper Published
Make the Manuscript Readable
• The problem of readability is particularly relevant
for authors for whom (at least for JVIR) English is
not their native tongue.
• While this problem is completely understandable, a
good suggestion is to have a colleague fluent in
English manuscript preparation review the
manuscript prior to submission
How To Get Your Paper Published
Tip 4
• Accept Suggestions By Reviewers as Ways to
Improve the Manuscript
How To Get Your Paper Published
Accept Suggestions By Reviewers
• Too often, authors respond to reviewers in an argumentative
fashion, as if the reviewer were personally attacking them.
“What in the world does this reviewer want???”
• Be respectful of the reviewers: while they may be mistaken
in some of their suggestions, most are trying very hard to
help authors recognize weaknesses in the study and its
presentation. Try to respond in a calm, thoughtful fashion
even if you disagree with a suggestion.
How To Get Your Paper Published
Tip 5
• Be Succinct!
How To Get Your Paper Published
Be Succinct
• Short, concise articles that “stick to the point” are
far easier to read and review than rambling tomes
that stray far from the heart of the study.
• It is reasonably easy to add material if an editor or
reviewer believes more detail is necessary.
• Delete material extremely familiar to journal readers
(e.g. explanation of Seldinger technique)
How To Get Your Paper Published
Tip 6
• Know the Audience for the Journal You Are
Submitting the Manuscript to
How To Get Your Paper Published
Know the Audience
• A superbly written, scientifically sound manuscript may,
nevertheless, not be accepted to a particular journal, if the
subject matter fails to reflect the practice patterns and
concerns of the majority of readers.
• This is a little difficult in some cases for interventional
radiology, which covers such a broad range of practice
patterns. However, for example, an article on treating
coronary artery disease with drug eluting stents would, in
general, be better sent to a journal on coronary interventions
than to JVIR.
How To Get Your Paper Published
Summary
• Timely, relevant, evidence-based scientific studies
that are well designed and well written
• Highlight the importance of the study or report
• Follow directions
• Make the manuscript clear, logical, and easy to read
• Be willing to accept reviewers’ suggestions as ways
to improve the manuscript
• Be succinct
• Know the audience
Thank You!