去他妈的世界下载:HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER

Abstract

Most scientists acquire their training inmanuscript review not through instruction but by actually doing it.Formal trainingin manuscript analysis is rarely, if ever,provided. Editors usually choose reviewers because of expertise in agiven subjectarea and availability. If an individualrepeatedly submits bad reviews, it is likely that that person will notbe asked toreview a manuscript again. Being invited toreview a manuscript is an honor, not only because you are beingrecognized foryour eminence in a particular area of researchbut also because of the responsibility and service you provide to thejournaland scientific community. The purpose of thisarticle is to define how best to peer review an article. We willstipulate severalprinciples of peer review and discuss some ofthe main elements of a good manuscript review, the basicresponsibilities ofa reviewer, and the rewards and responsibilitiesthat accompany this process. Proper reviewer conduct is essential formakingthe peer review process valuable and the journaltrustworthy.

Like any skill, the art of reviewing manuscripts isone that improves with practice. Although a person is not born with theknowledge or ability of how to be a good reviewer,the characteristics (e.g., fairness, thoroughness, integrity) of thatpersoncertainly contribute to the activity.Unfortunately, it is rare to find a scientist whose formal training hasincorporatedinstruction in the art of reviewing. Nonetheless,the techniques of peer reviewing a manuscript can be nurtured anddeveloped.Yet, peer review is a recognized and criticalcomponent of the overall publication process that confers "added value"to asubmitted paper. Moreover, editors are dependent onthe identification of a cadre of "good" reviewers that they can rely onfor quality control and process efficiency.Reviewers, for the most part, act in this capacity from a sense of duty,selflessness,and a desire to contribute in an important way tothe maintenance of high standards and veracity in their specific areasofresearch. Usually, no monetary compensation is, orshould be, provided.

This article will serve as an introduction to peerreview. Our intent is to identify issues and ethics of the reviewprocess,not to provide a comprehensive set of guidelinesfor all aspects of the review process. We will focus on the peer reviewofresearch manuscripts submitted to scientificjournals, but many of the elements of peer review can be applied toother areas,such as grants and books. Several questions will beaddressed. What constitutes a good review and reviewer? How should thereview of a manuscript be approached? What elementsof a review are most useful to the authors and editors? Should amanuscriptbe reviewed differently depending on the nature ofthe journal? It is our contention, based on experience, that if arevieweracts as an "author advocate," then many potentialproblems that may arise during the peer review process will be avoided.For example, a reviewer should treat a manuscriptbeing reviewed as he/she would want his/her own paper treated, i.e.,providea critique that is positive, critical yetobjective, and balanced, contains no personally offensive comments, andis returnedpromptly. When specific criticisms are made, thereviewer should indicate precisely what the problems are and how theymaybe overcome. A confusing or uninformative critiqueis not helpful either to the authors or to the editor. If the reviewerdisputes a point made by the authors, he/she shouldprovide explicit justification for his/her argument (e.g., literaturecitations). Unjustified biases on the part of thereviewer have no place in peer review. A reviewer also has aresponsibilityto familiarize him/herself with all aspects of themanuscript unless directed by the editor to focus on a specific area.Thismay entail reading previous, related articles fromthe authors or other papers in the field. It is fair to assume that theauthors of the submitted manuscript are passionateabout their work and that they have made a legitimate effort to performand interpret their experiments carefully. However,the other hat that a reviewer must wear is that of the "journaladvocate."As a journal advocate, the reviewer’s job is tomake sure that the best possible science appears in print. The purposeofpeer review is to ensure 1) quality, checking that no mistakes in procedure or logic have been made; 2) that the results presented support the conclusion drawn; 3) that no errors in citations to previous work have been made; 4)that all human and animal protocols conducted follow proper review andapproval by appropriate institutional review committees;and, very importantly, 5) that the work is original and significant.

ELEMENTS OF MANUSCRIPT REVIEW

Manuscript review can be divided into two maincategories: the technical and the ethical. Both aspects are primarilyconcernedwith making the manuscript better and ensuring thatit is reporting trustworthy data. An example of reviewer instructionsis presented as Table 1. Note that points 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6are concerned with more technical issues. Is the writing clear,concise, and intelligible? Is the manuscript logical? Doesit make a significant and novel contribution to thefield? Are there any fatal methodological flaws? Are all the figuresclearand necessary? Point 3 deals primarilywith ethical issues. Are there any concerns with regard to the properuse and care of animals? If human studieswere done, were they conducted with the priorapproval of the subjects and institutions? Did the human protocolsconform toprevailing ethical and legal standards? Point 7likewise falls under an ethical realm, only not for the authors but forthe reviewer. The manuscript must be treated in aconfidential manner. Thus a reviewer must not onlyprovide an unbiased evaluative analysis of the structural components ofa manuscript but must do so in an acceptable,ethical context.

REVIEWER’S ETIQUETTE AND RESPONSIBILITIES

It is important to remember that a reviewer isasked to provide an informed opinion about a manuscript. The decisionwhetherthe manuscript will be published is made solely bythe editor. Thus the editor must be able to discern very precisely thereviewer’s thoughts and weigh that opinion with oragainst those of the other reviewers and his/her own. An editor willappreciatea substantive evaluation of a manuscript. If areviewer disagrees with the conclusion of an author, it is incumbentupon thereviewer to provide definitive reasons orappropriate citations, not simply make remarks such as, "I just don’tbelieve yourdata," or "It can’t possibly be so." If a reviewerhas a bias against the author, he/she should recuse him/herself fromreviewingthe paper. A reviewer must be knowledgeable aboutthe topic and have a clear understanding of the historical context inwhichthe work was done. Because many manuscriptsnowadays are collaborative efforts between different laboratories using amyriadof different techniques, it is unlikely that anysingle reviewer will be expert in all of the protocols encountered in agivenpaper. The reviewer should comment only on thoseaspects of the work with which he/she has familiarity; making the editoraware of this is helpful. Again, let us reiterate,the most important rule is to follow the golden rule: treat allmanuscriptsin the same manner that you would want your owntreated.

The responsibilities of a reviewer can be summarized as follows.

1. The reviewer should provide an honest, critical assessment of the research. The reviewer’s job is to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the research, provide suggestions for improvement, and clearly state what must be done to raise the level of enthusiasm for the work. The reviewer should not manipulate the process to force the authors to address issues interesting or important to the reviewer but peripheral to the objective(s) of the study.
   
2. The reviewer should maintain confidentiality about the existence and substance of the manuscript. It is not appropriate to share the manuscript or to discuss it in detail with others or even to reveal the existence of the submission before publication. There are some exceptions, if approved by the editor. One exception is that the reviewer may want a junior colleague to have the experience of reviewing and therefore may ask him/her to collaborate on a review. However, if this is done, your collaborator on the review should also agree to maintain confidentiality, and the editor should be informed of the participation of this additional person. Some journals require editor approval before a colleague or student is asked to view a submitted paper; others do not.
   
3. The reviewer must not participate in plagiarism. It is obviously a very serious transgression to take data or novel concepts from a paper to advance your own work before the manuscript is published.
   
4. The reviewer should always avoid, or disclose, any conflicts of interest. For example, the reviewer should decline to review a manuscript on a subject in which he/she is involved in a contentious dispute and does not feel that a fair review can be provided. The reviewer should also avoid biases that influence the scientific basis for a review. One example of this is a bias that favors studies with positive rather than negative results. Another example is if the reviewer has a close personal or professional relationship with one or more of the authors such that his/her objectivity would be compromised. Scientific merit should be the basis for all reviews.
   
5. The reviewer should accept manuscripts for review only in his/her areas of expertise. Although editors try very hard to match manuscripts with the most expert reviewers, sometimes mistakes are made. It is unfair to the authors and to the overall review process if the referee does not have the expertise to review the manuscript adequately. The exception to this general rule is when an editor specifically asks for your view as a "nonexpert" or seeks your opinion on a special aspect of the manuscript (e.g., statistics).
   
6. The reviewer should agree to review only those manuscripts that can be completed on time. Sometimes, unforeseen circumstances arise that preclude a reviewer from meeting a deadline, but in these instances the reviewer should immediately contact the editor. It is unfair to the authors of the manuscript for reviews to be inordinately delayed by tardy referees. Delaying a review can sometimes lead to charges by the authors that the reviewers (who undoubtedly work in the same area) are "stonewallng" in order to publish their related work first, thus establishing priority.
   
7. The reviewer also has the unpleasant responsibility of reporting suspected duplicate publication, fraud, plagiarism, or ethical concerns about the use of animals or humans in the research being reported.
   
8. The reviewer should write reviews in a collegial, constructive manner. This is especially helpful to new investigators. There is nothing more discouraging to a new investigator (or even to a more seasoned one) than to receive a sarcastic, destructive review. Editors are not trying to determine the scientific prowess or wittiness of the reviewer. The reviewer should not shy away from discussing the weaknesses (or strengths) of a study, however. No one likes to have a paper rejected, but a carefully worded review with appropriate suggestions for revision can be very helpful. In fact, an author should prefer to have his/her paper rejected if the review process uncovered errors in the study.
   

SUMMARY

Reviewing is both a privilege and responsibility.It takes time to prepare a useful, critical review. Moreover, it clearlyis a service to the journal, to the authors, toscience at large, and to the reviewer because the reviewer becomes privytothe latest in cutting-edge research. Most journalsdo not pay referees, although most do provide acknowledgement in printto the editorial board and external referees ineach issue of the journal and/or, like the American PhysiologicalSociety,by holding a yearly Publications Banquet at theExperimental Biology meeting. Peer review is the heart and soul ofscientificpublishing. Editors rely on reviewers to assessquality and to determine which of the many manuscripts competing forspacewill be published. Therefore, the most importantreward for you as a reviewer is your contribution to the quality ofpublishedscience.

We submit that, regardless of the perceivedpreeminence of any particular journal, you should approach the review ofeachresearch paper the same way. Table 2 provides a checklist for the essential elements that should be addressed in any review. Table 3 summarizes what a handling editor is concerned with when evaluating the quality of a review and reviewer.

From a practical point of view, publishing your ownmanuscripts depends on the quality and altruism of other peerreviewers,and you undoubtedly desire your own work to beevaluated carefully and fairly. There are many aspects of providing goodconstructivereviews. Some of these are best learned throughyour mentors and your own experience. However, the most important traitsarecourtesy, fairness, and punctuality. Thus, whenpeer reviewing, follow the golden rule: treat other manuscripts as youwouldwant your own to be treated. The entire peer reviewprocess, which in essence determines the public record of science, isbased on trust—trust between authors and editorsand trust between editors and reviewers. The quality and integrity oftheentire scientific publishing enterprise depends inlarge measure on the quality and integrity of the reviewers.

RESOURCES

Very little definitive research into the practiceand effectiveness of peer review has been done, although groups such asthe Council of Science Editors, the AmericanMedical Association, the American Chemical Society, the American Collegeof EmergencyPhysicians, and the Committee on Publication Ethicsrecognize the importance of such information. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association has sponsored four International Congresses on Peer Review in Biomedical Publications (10). The September 2001 issue of Academic Medicine was dedicated to a discussion of review criteria and reviewer behavior for research manuscripts (5). A book summarizing the latest research on different aspects of peer review has been published by the British Medical Journal (4). A number of general articles on peer review and the role of a reviewer have been published (2, 6, 7, 9). Several articles concerning reviewer selection criteria and evaluation also exist (1, 3, 8).

AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS

Dale J. Benos, PhD, is a former Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Physiology - Cell Physiology,serves on five editorial boards of biomedical journals and has servedon nine others in the past. He is currently Chairof the Publications Committee of the AmericanPhysiological Society and Chair of the Department of Physiology andBiophysicsat the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Kevin L. Kirk, PhD, is Professor of Physiology andBiophysics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He is a member oftwo editorial boards and is Director of theIntegrated Biomedical Sciences Graduate Program at the University ofAlabama atBirmingham.

John E. Hall, PhD, served as Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory, Integrative, and Comparative Physiology, is currently Editor-In-Chief of Hypertension, and is a member of the editorial boards of eight other journals. He is Past President of the American Physiological Societyand Chair of the Department of Physiology and Biophysics at the University of Mississippi Medical Center.

Acknowledgments

We thank Margaret Reich for helpful discussions and comments on the manuscript.

Address for reprint requests and othercorrespondence: D. J. Benos, Dept. of Physiology and Biophysics, TheUniv. of Alabamaat Birmingham, 1918 Univ. Blvd., MCLM 704,Birmingham, AL 35294–0005 (E-mail: benos@physiology.uab.edu).

Received for publication December 11, 2002.Accepted for publication March 20, 2003.

References

1. Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, and Callaham ML. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Ann Emerg Med 32: 310–317, 1998.[Web of Science][Medline]
2. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, and Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 280: 231–233, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Caelleigh AS, Shea JA, and Penn G. Selection and qualities of reviewers. Acad Med 76: 914–916, 2001.[Web of Science]
4. Godlee F and Jefferson T. Peer Review in Health Sciences. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1999.
5. Joint Task Force of Academic Medicine and the GEA-RIME Committee. Task force report—review criteria for research manuscripts. Acad Med 76(9), 2001.
6. Polak JF. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther 165: 685–688, 1995.
7. Siegelman SS. Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Radiology 178: 637–642, 1991.[Free Full Text]
8. Van Rooyen S, Black N, and Godlee F. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol 52: 625–629, 1999.[Web of Science][Medline]
9. Weller AC. Editorial. Peer review in US medical journals. JAMA 263: 1344–1347, 1990.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Weller AC. Peer review: do studies prove its effectiveness? The Scientist October 29, 2001, p.39.