HOW TO REVIEW AN ARTICLE
DR. SATISH K. SHUKLA
MS, FAIS, FICS, ONCO.(USA)
RETD. PROF. AND HOD SURGERY
M.G.M. Medical College,
M.Y. Hospital – Group of Hospitals, Indore
Director, Lakshmi Memorial Hospital & Research Centre, Indore
Chairman/Editor – Indian Journal of Surgery (I.J.S.)
Introduction : –
Review an article is a very pious duty and honour to an individual for giving his views on articles submitted to a journal. Journal has its own policy of selecting Reviewers considering their contribution to the scientific journals in their own speciality, other scientific achievements and involvement in research, teaching and guiding work. It is the recognition of one’s total work and their aptitude to promote good truthful scientific matter without any apprehension. Position and knowledge may not go together and so also knowledge and its conversion to writing articles and review an article.[1,2] It needs individual mission to write an article but ones dedication to the literary/scientific world to judge an article and comment correctly with responsibility to promote the literature, encourage author, guide author and uphold status of the Journal. Institutions are made by the teacher with dedication and pupils of enthusiasm and discipline to pursue it course. Similarly journal – epidome of knowledge is made by Authors with vision to analyse their work and put into correct writing and Reviewer to evaluate it correctly and guide Author as well Editor. While reviewing an article personal factor including egos, competitiveness and bias attitude should not come in the way and disciplined to give comments in time is necessary.
Author’s Submission :-
Author’s should submit the article as per the instructions given in Journal. Read it carefully and follow it judiciously. Most of the journals accept online submission, while other also accept hard copies. Online submission is easy, quick and gives immediately the journal submission number which is also the article reference number[4]. If Author gets this article reference number, he is assured of correct article submission and can tract the status of the article from time to time. Depending on the format of website, articles are automatically transferred to the system connecting to Master files, Editor, and reviewers taking care of different subspecialities. Editor Managers do take care of the process and help in case of problems related to speciality, reviewer allotment or any help from editor or reviewers.
Once the article is reviewed by the Editor Manager, it is examined from the Journal format’s point of view and transferred onward with instructions accordingly or returns to Author, pointing out the mistakes in format and compliance. This makes easy for Reviewer to concentrate on his main review process without carrying for first part of Journal’s policy of follow its format. Reviewers are mostly involved in more then one journal’s work in one or other way and each journal has its own policy related to submission and Review process. Let him concentrate on his own work of reviewing the articles, under journal’s policy instructions.
Reviewer’s First View –
Reviewer are the persons of knowledge, wisdom, ability and dedication, involved in pursuing the course of streamlining the scientific material published in systematic way with advancement and some message to the available literature and guide the Author’s to improve and achieve better and best. He is involved in his primary professional work and do this job taking time from his busy schedule, because of his personal commitment and aptitude to serve the scientific literature for its betterment. Professional Reviewer’s hired by big publication houses are usually involved in book publication, and also in journal publication. They also posses highly quality technique of reviewing judiciously and truthfully to keep the standard of the journal.
Once a Reviewer gets an article from a Journal, he should accept it if he can do the work within time limit and not overburdened with other work of importance to him, otherwise refuse it immediately[5]. He is invited because of his experience of precious review reports and comments, analytical judgment of articles, and timely presentation of report. Value this invitation and help in the scientific advancements, enhancing journals creditability and establish own status as a good reviewer. Years of reviewing work, makes one a true reviewer with quality comments[3]. This has nothing to do with age, position, knowledge and published articles. One has to review articles with open and unbiased mind, leaving personal egos, self esteemed thinking and attitude to show knowledge, which block the mental power of truthful analysis.
Review Material :-
Reviewer once accepts the article to review he should see the material sent is complete in term of written material with charts/figures and photographs. The material in most of cases at present is sent electronically. In case hard copy is sent by the journal, return material if not complete and ask for full text. The articles for review are of following category as per the journal policy or Institutional policy,
(a) Anonymous – The article does not show the names and place of the author for unbiased evaluation. Most of authentic Journals have this policy.
(b) Internal Review – Many institutions has policy to review the articles prepared by the members of the Institution to review by their panel and give comments to improve it before allowing it to send to journal. Some Journals do such auditing by their Editors and if fit forward it to reviewers.
(c) Second Opinion – In case of some conflicting reports by two reviewer the matter is referred to the third reviewer or editor or board of editors, in anonymous way or disclosing names of the author or institution if it helps in taking final decision. If reviewer gives comment on other reviewer’s comments, he should study the article, read conflicting report and give his comments with caution as this is an academic auditing.
(d) Re-review – Author rewrite/correct the article and resubmit. This goes to the same Reviewer for comments. If reviewer gives his comments though with reasonings and send back to author for corrections more than three times, it needs retrospection and opinion from second reviewer/editor. Send rewritten manuscript with all documents and all the comments of previous reviewer for review. This is a difficult work, but senior reviewers/editor always take it very positively and give the final comments, which help Editor to take final decision correctly.
(e) Re-review on Author’s request – In case Author is not satisfied with the comments of the reviewer, he can request the Editor with reasoning to relocate to some other reviewer for decision. It is upto Editor or policy of Journal to accept this request or not.
(f) Open review – Open review[5] is accepted by most of the journals where online submission and further process is through journal website. Reviewer’s comments are sent to Editor and to the Author as per system or only the final comments of reviewer and editor is sent to Author irrespective of rejection, acceptance or revision. Report is always with reasoning supporting the final decision. Author gets analytical reviews regarding his article and to improve upon it as necessary. Author, in case not satisfied with the comments can request Editor in Chief for consideration and explain with reasoning regarding the reviewer’s comments. Editor in Chief decision is final. Many Journals do not follow this open system and only final comments are sent to Author with final verdict of acceptance/rejection. With online processing and well knit website, things are more transparent and satisfying to both reviewers as well authors.
Language Correction :-
Language correction is the responsibility of the Editorial Manager. Spellings and grammatical mistakes are checked by the computer language manager system. But sequences and punctuations with scientific flow and subject continuity is to be checked manually. Reviewer often gets problem in understanding the meaning of some sentences. Such cases are to be marked and return to the Author with specific underline markings for correction. Small corrections at one or two places are generally ignored and corrected by Editorial Manager/Reviewer.
Rules for Review :-
Good reviewer status is achieved after years of experience, re-reviewing his own comments and analyzing with other colleagues time to time and reading the feed back from Editors as well Authors[8]. Let this feeling of analytic, unbiased attitude remain to perform better and better. Once the article is received and accepted to review, read it thrice. First reading gives a general feel of the article regarding its format as per journal, language and correlations of different parts of the article. Second reading is to judge its depth with correctness of scientific material and third reading is to judge each part of it with correct correlation and perception and mark what is wrong and unnecessary. This makes the preview of the article clear in ones mind and receptive to self analysis and writing comments. Following third reading, try to write comments as soon as possible, as delay may lead to confusion and may compel to read again for correct decision.
Following points helps in final analysis and critical evaluation of the article before writing final comments.
– Read the instructions from the journal carefully and categories the article accordingly.
– Comments if needed on some specific part of the article should be dealt accordingly, keeping in mind over all structure of the article.
– If no directive and you need more information or specific direction, do inform the journal for clarification.
– Mostly the name of the authors and institutions are withheld, but if disclosed, should not be a matter of concern, as persons or
institutions are not the subject of review unless they are the subject.
– Is article well written without any contradiction?
– Review is as per the aims and objective of the article, which may be covering a small part of the subject, while you have knowledge more then the article’s presentation. Restrict your views to article’s objective only.
– Know the limitations of ones knowledge and sphere of his speciality before reviewing it.
-Be objective and take account of any conflict of interest.
– Results with datas, charts, tables and photographs are comprehensible, compatible with each other and are same as in discussion or some conflicting datas.
– In discussion the references should be checked supporting the results or otherwise, without any false report.
– Conclusion is the main part from Reviewer’s point of view. Many reviewers first read aims and object and compare with conclusion. If the study proves the hypothesis of aims and objective, the same should reflect in conclusion with clear words and well framed sentences to prove articles objectivity with message.
– Reference should be in reasonable number and some from current available literature supporting findings or even negative finding of importance.
– Is any Ethical problem involved?
– Any fatal flaw in presentation or deviation from basic study and objective of the article should be defined clearly and report specifically.
– Journal has faith in reviewer’s capability, respect it and full fill this responsibility with utmost care.
Web Search :-
Reviewer should always take the help of web search if necessary in case results and conclusion do not match your views and on expected line. Similar literature search gives you many new and original informations which alerts you to take proper decision. It is a teaching to a teacher and exposes reviewer to extended knowledge.
Question to ask yourself :– Reviewer is now well acquainted with the subject of the article and its presentation. He has to ask few questions as below to ascertain his ability to give his review report with critical analysis.
– Is the subject, I know well? The main theme of the article is as per the Reviewer’s speciality or expertise.
– Is format and contents true and satisfy him? Aims, Object and Method clearly defined and add to the knowledge.
– Is work original? Methods applied and its results correlate well with each other scientifically and objective should go well with conclusion.
– Is work valid? Type of study, design of study, numbers of subject and data analysis should be on prevalent scientific basis.
– Do you get any new message, positive or negative? If study properly done, results may vary and give different conclusion, justify it correctly.
The above questions and answers make a complete comprehensive article review data and help in judging the article with correct and desirable comments.
Writing Report :-
Writing report is a very responsible work. Reviewer work is to understand article, analyse the different parts of the article, coordinate their findings and make up his mind by writing important points with reasoning. If one is matured enough to do all reading work and start writing report soon, it may give comprehensive relevant report, but if time lapsed, few points in favour or against may be missed. No personal comments about Author or Institution, and restrict writing to the subject only. Language including phrasing of sentences should be clear, short and courteous. Any wrong writing not compatible with aims and object, as well results or discussion, should be pointed out with suggestions to improve. This is to encourage Author to improve and resubmit. Any word or sentence condemning work is not desirable, but should be phrased as constructive suggestions. Author will appreciate negative comments and mistakes pointed out with positive remarks and will respond with enthusiasm[4,7]. Number of resubmissions of the article shows the faith of Author in the Journal and Reviewer. Encourage young scientist to write article. Following constructive comments, let him mature with the time, rather repulsive to writing.
First part of the comments should be a cohesive description as per title, down to the conclusion. Second part judges, if facts are correct and follow the objective of the paper. Does discussion include all the aspect laid down in the article and properly matched to support or against, if not, needs revision? Third part needs thinking and rethinking before writing. Do not allow best, to be enemy of good. Define the changes needed, minor or major, and give instructions to improve. In case of rejection, write the points as above with supporting views.
In case reports, Authors usually write – unusual or rare case. It is true from Author’s point of view but is not true most of the time. Sometimes usual case can be interesting with unusual presentations, interesting radiological findings or unusual histopathology, can be recommended under other categories like images in surgery, surgical histopathology or letter to editor after revision. If the case report is interesting, unusual but not uncommon can be recommended to change the article into a Review article and resubmit.
Confidential –
Sometimes reviewers come across problems, do not wish to be known to Author but Editor only, should mention this clearly– “CONFIDENTIAL FOR EDITOR ONLY” and the comments for Author separately. In case of conflict of interest academically or grants supporting the work in knowledge of Reviewer, should resist reviewing the article and inform Editor. Plagiarism is another aspect more frequently seen now. Well read Reviewer can get feeling after reading the article and search web or refer back to Editor to search for Plagiarism. Phenomenon of plagiarism is not only found in young authors but even in seniors and renowned institutions also. In case the name of author / institution is disclosed somehow, do not get carried away, but report as necessary. Do not overshoot your limit to recommend action, as this is the prerogative of Editor.
Conclusion :-
Reviewer is an important part of journal processing system, enhances its image and attracts new Authors, if does his job well, unbiased, truthfully and in time. Good coordination between Reviewer and Editor is necessary without egos. Examine the article regarding its originality, presentation, title, introduction, aims and objects, material method and discussions are in line and support conclusion. Fatal flaws, ethical problems and plagiarism are to be reported to Editor. Comments should be precise, with facts without prejudices. Revision if necessary should be pointed with clear instructions. Rejection is not pleasant to Author but if substantiated by correct and critical evaluation with proper reasoning, it is always appreciated and encourages him[6,8]. Accepted articles should also have full comments with remarks on good work. Simply writing – Rejected or Accepted will not go well with Editor. Publication of a recognized and well read Journal, accepted by the desired scientific group, a cohesive effort of Editorial members, reviewers, advisor and publication team is necessary. It is years of hard work at all levels make a Journal to achieve high standard. In all scientific PRESENTATION with critical analysis is the important aspect and each one’s role is precious and important above all is of Reviewer.
——–
REFERENCES
1. Hoppin, Jr. G.F. (2002) – “How I reviewed an original scientific article” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Medicine, 166:1019-1023
2. Benos, J.D., Kirk, L.K. and Hall, E.J. (2003) – How to Review a Paper Advan. Physio.Edu 27:47-52
3. Lynch, G.J. (1998) – “Presidential Address – Reviewing” Advances in Consumer Research, 25 : 1-16
4. Bengtson, L.V., Macdermoid, M.S. – How to review a Journal article. Suggestion for first time Reviewer and Reminder for Seasoned Experts. – ncfr.catalyzing research, theory and practice. http//www.ncfr.org/journals/marriage_family/review/how.asp
5. Alan Meier, Berkeley Lab, University of California – How to Review a Technical Paper, http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/Buildings/Alan/publications/how.to.review.html
6. Michael Bieber, IS Department, New Jersey Institute of Technology – How to Review, http:/web.njit.edu/-bieber/review.html
7. Irene Hames (2007) – Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals, Guideline for Good Practice, Willey-Blackwell, ISBN 978-1-4051-3159-9
8. Godleef, Making Review Visible : Opinion, Accountability and Credit. JAMA 2002:287-2762-2765
9. Campion W., Curfman D. and Drazen J.M. (2002) – Tracking the Peer Review Process – Editorial. The New England Journal of Medicine, 343:1485-86