SCCM Reviewer Academy. The next module focuses on the content of the review. Please note the relevant disclosures. This module focuses on how to conduct and provide a constructive and helpful peer review to both the authors of manuscripts and the involved journal editors. At the end of this module, the learner will be able to determine the characteristics of a good peer review, what steps to undertake in performing a review of a manuscript submitted to a journal, and finally, how to craft a feedback document to the authors and journal editors, respectively. The main aim of any peer review is to objectively review the scientific rigor and standard of the work that is being submitted. The reviewer needs to evaluate whether this work has merit and whether it reaches the standards set by the journal. In terms of this evaluation, the reviewer has the responsibility to provide constructive feedback so that the work can be optimized for publication or be rejected with full explanation of what problems were identified or what needs to be corrected. It is usually helpful if the reviewer can demonstrate that they understand the context within which the authors are working and the particular issues that they are addressing. Parties involved includes the reviewers, journal editors, and manuscript authors. Reviewers are often asked to provide thoughtful and useful critique so that, one, the editor is given good advice as to whether this article should be published, with or without changes, and two, the authors can improve the quality of their paper. As such, being constructive is key in the peer review process. We propose that a systematic, constructive approach is the optimal method to conduct a peer review. Reviewers perceive feedback to be beneficial when it is concrete, provides actionable steps towards improvement, uses compassionate language, and does not demean the work or the authorship team. Harsh comments are negatively correlated with constructiveness. The two parties who gets the most feedback from the peer review process are the editor in charge of the manuscript and the authors of the manuscript. Each party requires somewhat different feedback. The journal editor is looking for the peer reviewer to provide an assessment on the scientific rigor and quality of the submitted work, how the work adds to the current medical literature, and finally, how the manuscript fits into the interest of the readers of the journal. The authors are looking for feedback on the quality of their submitted work and actionable steps that could improve the scientific rigor of the study and the presentation of the results. More importantly, the feedback should be provided in a clear and constructive manner to the authors. Before agreeing to conduct a review, potential reviewers should read the provided manuscript abstract, both to determine if they are qualified to perform the review based on their own expertise and to identify any potential conflicts of interest, COI. Major potential conflicts of interest include personal relationship to the authors, holding a patent or industry involvement on the same topic, or personal recognition of an inability to provide an unbiased review. In these situations, it is best to be transparent and notify the editor of the potential conflict of interest and allow them to decide on whether this constitutes a real conflict. A thorough review is a time-consuming process that can take many hours to complete. This is something to consider before agreeing to perform a peer review. Make sure you have enough time set aside for this. The peer review process takes time. Some may require approximately a total of 4 hours to conduct a thorough review. But this may vary from reviewer to reviewer and complexity of the manuscript. This slide shows a proposed scheme for the conduct of a peer review. Usually, two readings are required to identify major concerns in the study design or reporting. These may include unethical methods, biased reporting, and potential plagiarism. A more detailed review of the manuscript will then evaluate the scientific merit, the innovation of the study, the contribution to the medical literature, and the reviewer's recommendation for publication. The reviewer's recommendation for publication should only be communicated to the editor. The review can then provide to the authors a detailed assessment of each subsection of the manuscript and constructive feedback grouped as major comments and minor comments accordingly. Following the detailed reading and analysis of strengths and limitations of the manuscripts, the documentation of the review is constructed for the authors. A typical format for a review to the authors often starts with a single paragraph highlighting the study that was conducted, the main findings, and the conclusion of the study together with big-picture strengths and limitations. There are many different ways to approach the rest of the review, and we offer one version here. Of note, if working with an experienced mentor on your early reviews, you may choose to incorporate their style for review, so long as all of the key elements of the review are included. A systematic critique of each subsection of the manuscript can be one approach for a review style. For each subsection, the reviewer can address particular strengths and areas for improvement or correction. Another review style approach can be division of comments into major and minor points, irrespective of subsection of the manuscript. After completing comments for the authors, the reviewer composes a summary for the journal editor. This will include a recommendation for acceptance, revision, or rejection to the editor. This is not written as part of the formal comments to the authors, along with whether the manuscript is appropriate for the journal readership. The ultimate decision to accept or reject any manuscript lies with the editor. This slide provides a format for a peer-review document. It is typically divided into three main sections, brief summary, major comments, and minor comments. Major comments pertain to critical and important issues with regard to the study report or manuscript. Examples of this include poor methodology, missing ethical approval, and plagiarism or repeat publication. These issues need to be addressed clearly but tactfully, particularly if there is any chance that there has been some misunderstanding, slicing and dicing material to increase publication numbers, previous publication of some of this material, etc. The minor comments section usually entails discretionary edits and typographical errors. Crafting the peer-review document is an art. Derogatory language should be avoided. This slide shows some examples on how to craft the feedback to the authors that is constructive and not ambiguous. The abstract lacks pertinent details and is incomplete. This feedback does not tell the authors what the reviewer has in mind or which details are missing. The feedback provided on the right gives more guidance to the authors on what the reviewer was expecting in the abstract. The regression analysis utilized in this study is flawed. This short feedback doesn't reveal what is deemed incorrect in the statistical analysis performed by the authors. Instead, the example provided on the right indicates to the authors what important components were missing. Other points for consideration during the peer-review process include the following. The reviewer may need to further read the literature to fully understand some manuscripts. It is perfectly acceptable to let the editor know that you are not an expert in certain sections of the manuscript and where you would suggest a consultation with an appropriate topic or content expert. All of us have our own biases and preferences. It is vital to keep asking ourselves whether we are being objective in our review and whether we are providing feedback to improve the manuscript and the science that is being presented. Ineffective reviews lack concrete, actionable discussion of the three key domains. For example, scientific merit, contribution to the literature, and publication decision. Moreover, tone and style of delivery can have a major negative impact on the quality of a review. The review should address issues that arise on careful study of the paper, and sometimes that may need more extensive comments. The authors should recognize from the review that the reviewer has substantially engaged with the manuscript. The reviewer should highlight important references that have perhaps not been cited in the manuscript. Statements should be clear and not confusing, and it may be important to highlight when the overall readability of an article could be improved. In summary, the peer review process is an integral component of academic medicine. A good peer review process ensures that the scientific standard continues to improve over time. This important skill is rarely formally taught in residency or fellowship programs. The skills to perform and report a constructive peer review can be learned and refined over time with practice. This module provided the basics on how to perform and provide a formal documentation for the peer review process.

SCCM Reviewer Academy

peer review

constructive feedback

scientific merit

manuscript evaluation