Transcript HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER FOR EUROPEAN UROLOGY

HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER
FOR EUROPEAN UROLOGY
Stephen A. Boorjian, MD, FACS
Professor of Urology
Director, Urologic Oncology Fellowship
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, MN
DISCLOSURES
• Financial: none
• Intellectual: “this is how I do it”
– Many approaches can be successful
OUTLINE FOR TALK
• Section-by-section manuscript review tips
• Importance of serving as a manuscript
reviewer
• Conclusions
HOW TO REVIEW A MANUSCRIPT
FOR EUROPEAN UROLOGY
POINTS TO CONSIDER DURING REVIEW
• Originality of question/topic
• “Robustness” of dataset
• Appropriate methodology
• Importance of findings
• Do the present data add in a meaningful and
significant way to the existing literature on the topic?
MANUSCRIPT TITLE
• Does the title accurately represent the
data presented?
• Does the title sufficiently represent the
data presented
– “Catch the eye” of the casual reader
ABSTRACT
• Very important – often only part of
manuscript read
• Can it be read as a stand-along
representation of manuscript?
– Critical methodology/data included
– Conclusions supported by data provided
• Does it follow the EU guidelines?
INTRODUCTION
• Brief background to topic, citing relevant
literature
• Key – does the Introduction “sell” the
importance of the topic/need for the study?
• Are the objective(s) of the study clearly
stated?
METHODS
• Level of detail provided
– i.e. explain reasoning for select patients being
excluded from study/provide demonstration that not
biasing analyses in remaining cohort
• Critical – are the methods chosen appropriate
to address the question of interest?
– Validated instrument for QoL assessment
– i.e. Cox model vs logistic regression analysis
METHODS: REPORTING GUIDELINES
• Used to standardize reporting of clinical
studies
– Enhance research quality
– Enhance transparency
• CONSORT (diagram) – for RCT
• PRISMA – for systematic reviews + metaanalysis
• EQUATOR website
http://www.equator-network.org/
RESULTS
• KEY SECTION OF MANUSCRIPT
– “Non-fixable” with revisions
• (For clinical studies):
– Size of dataset (power of analyses)
– Duration of follow-up for endpoint of interest
and disease state being studied
• 2 years ok to report mortality in mRCC
• 2 years not ok for mortality in localized PCa
RESULTS
• Are relevant demographic details regarding
study population and treatment provided?
• Are the outcome measures reported
appropriate and sufficient?
– i.e. text should not present p values only, but raw
numbers (%) provided as well
• Do the reported findings make sense?
– RFS, CSS, OS congruous?
REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT TABLES
• “Readability”
– Too much/too little data provided to easily read
• Are all tables referenced in text?
• Do tables/text present duplicate data? Are
conflicting data presented?
• Do the numbers in the table add-up?
REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT TABLES
• Sequence/completeness of tables
– Demographic data
– Univariate comparisons
– Multivariate models
• HR, 95% CI, p values provided
REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT FIGURES
• Are all the figures included necessary?
– No duplication
• Is data presentation clear and not mis-labeled?
– Appropriate axis/scales on graphs
• Can figures be read “stand-alone” (without
accompanying text)?
– For Kaplan-Meier curve:
• p values provided
• Number of patients at risk at various timepoints provided
DISCUSSION SECTION
• Orderly flow
– Summarize results
– Contextualize results = KEY!
• In light of existing literature on the topic
• Explain discrepancies in findings from prior similar
series
– Methodology, study population
• Offer why present study = unique
DISCUSSION SECTION
• Paragraph detailing study limitations
• Conclusions (in this section or as standalone section)
– Are the conclusions supported by the data
presented?
– Does the manuscript leave you with a message
regarding the importance of the study?
REFERENCES: A WINDOW TO THE AUTHORS
• Reflects authors’ familiarity with subject matter
– Marker of well-done paper
• I often read after abstract and before
manuscript
• Review paper – absolutely critical (i.e. = “data”)
– Comprehensive + contemporary
• Most recent series if multiple from one center
– Will be reference basis for readers
REFERENCES: A WINDOW TO THE AUTHORS
• Original (non-review) paper – still essential
– Inclusive of relevant series
• Largest
• Contemporary
• Best datasets
– Look at quality of journals cited – JAMA, JCO, Eur Urol
– Avoid over self-citation
• But – appropriate referencing of one’s prior work
may reflect expertise in subject area
MISCELLANEOUS REVIEW COMMENTS
• Does the manuscript follow EU guidelines?
–
–
–
–
Length of abstract/manuscript
Number/format for references
Inclusion of all required sections (Take Home Message)
Is the paper clearly formatted for another journal?!!!
• Cover letter addressed to another editor!
• Writing style/presentation
– If you found it hard to understand/read, so will target
audience
ORGANIZING YOUR REVIEW FOR
SUBMISSION: COMMENTS TO AUTHORS
• 2-3 sentence summary of manuscript/critical
findings
• Major concerns/suggested changes
– Project concept, study design, study population
– Methodologic/statistical concerns
• Minor concerns
– References
– Modifications to tables/figures
– Formatting
ORGANIZING YOUR REVIEW FOR
SUBMISSION: COMMENTS TO EDITOR
• Brief summary of decision recommended
and key points to support
– Originality of question
– “Robustness” of dataset
– Appropriate methodology
– Importance of findings
• Do the present data add in a meaningful and
significant way to the existing literature on the topic?
HOW TO GET BETTER AT MANUSCRIPT REVIEWS
• Practice, practice, practice
• Track disposition of manuscripts you review
– Read other reviewers’ comments
ARE REVIEWERS EVER WRONG?
• Eur Urol process makes effort for consensus,
but message/novelty of work may be missed
• Authors may appeal a decision
– Submit (timely) letter to journal
– Well-reasoned explanation of why author feels
reviewers’ assessment incorrect
– May (may not) lead to manuscript being sent for
re-review to garner additional opinions
WHY IS MANUSCRIPT REVIEWING
IMPORTANT TO DO FOR YOU?
BENEFITS OF SERVING AS A REVIEWER I:
PERSONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT
• Become more facile at critical review
• Become a better author
– Types of analysis
– Presentation of data
• Reviewing a manuscript ≈ writing a good
manuscript
• Stay abreast of current literature
– PubMed topic as part of review
BENEFITS OF SERVING AS A REVIEWER
II: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
• Critical part of important process
– Currency of academics = peer-reviewed
publications
• Opportunity for academic recognition
– Best Reviewer, Editorial Board positions
• Establishment of contacts
– Editors get to “know the name”
• Letters for academic promotion
BENEFITS OF SERVING AS A REVIEWER III
• FUN!
• Opportunity for “first-look” at new/exciting
data
• Opportunity to improve quality of
publications
• Diversion from other clinical/academic
responsibilities
CONCLUSIONS
• Manuscript review should address:
– Originality of question
– “Robustness” of dataset
– Appropriate methodology
– Importance of findings
• Personal + professional benefits to
reviewing
• Enjoy the process – “academic hobby”
THANK YOU
Questions?