Criteria/Article Originality/Impact Abstract

Introduction

Reject MajorRevision MinorRevision Accept No Yes Yes Yes Errorsindata(compared Minordataerrors Missing;poorly Allcomponents withtext,tables,figures); (roundingerrors; written; present; minormismatchwith Poorlywritten(incomplete Contentdoesnt Dataareaccurate text/tables/figures); sentences,needsmajor matchtext; andmatchtext; rewritingforsenseand Componentspresent Stated Wellwritten, butmayneedminor flow); objective/methods/ concise,clear writingforreadability results/conclusions Components(objective/ Subjectmatteris missingor methods/results/conclusion Subjectmatteris original, incomprehensible s)missingorunclear originalandimportant pressworthy,of Subjectmatterisnot Subjectmatterisof majorgeneral fresh,new;content interest specializedormoderate isnotoriginal; interest,orofmajorinterest materialisof onlyifpaperissubstantially marginalgeneral revised interest Needsmajorrewritingfor Wellwritten, Missing;poorly Minordataerrors senseandflow;dataerrors concise; written(would (e.g.,roundingerrors); (datadodontmatch requiremajor Hypothesisand Minorrewriting; rewritingforsense; text/tables/figures; purposeofstudyare hypothesisisclearly clearlyandconcisely Noclearstatement presentedandis Hypothesisandobjective presented ofwhystudywas supportedbytext notclearlystated; performed); Dataareaccurate; Referencesare Inadequatereferences(but Hypothesismissing, hypothesesare adequate couldbefixedvialitreview) weak,orunclear; correctlypresented IRB/HIPAA documentation missing andfullysupported Introtextdoesnt bytext match/supportbody text; Currentreferences thatwillbeof Multipledataerrors

ordataare questionable; Inadequateor outdatedreferences ortoomany references(andlittle chanceofthisflaw beingfixed) IRB/HIPAA

documentation missing

interesttoreaders

Materialsand Methods

Unfixableflawsin data/research (number/selection ofsubjects; instruments/drugs used; blinded/unblinded; independentvs consensusreadings) Descriptionof proceduresmissing orsounclearthat otherscouldnt reproducestudy, withlittlelikelihood thatdeficitcouldbe fixed; IRB/HIPAA compliance statementsmissing Questionabledata

Flawsindataand/or numerous errors/mismatchesindata thatpotentiallycanbefixed; Poorlywritten(incomplete sentences,needsmajor rewritingforsenseand flow); grammar/punctuation/ spellingerrorsthatdetract fromreadability; Descriptionofprocedures unclear;wouldbedifficult forotherstoreproduce studybyreadingarticle, althoughwithmajor rewriting,deficitcouldbe remedied Tables/figuresneedmajor work

Minordataerrorsthat areeasilyfixed Adequatelywritten, althoughwritingcould bepolished;minor typos/grammar/ punctuationerrors Descriptionof proceduresneeds minorclarification (clearlyremediable) Toomany/toofew figures/tables(easily remediable)

Dataareaccurate Allresearch componentsare present,clearly stated Proceduresare clear,concise,and easilyreplicable; articleadvances knowledge Allcompliance guidelinesaremet Tables/figures contribute substantiallyto content

Results

and/ormajorerrors indata/statistical methods; Nonewinformation isimparted;poorly written/hardto understand; Inadequate/missing figures/tables Multiplegrammar/ punctuation/spelling errorsandlanguage grasp Missingor completely unsupportiveof itemsmentionedin Materialsand Methods Doesnotanswerthe researchquestion Notcredible Statistical significanceof findingsnotstated Repetitiveofdata alreadycovered
inconsistent with all available data in the literature (possibility of false data)

Supportof hypothesis/research question/itemsmentioned inMaterialsandMethods unclear,butkey componentsarepresentand majorrewritingcanaddress lackofclarity Credible,butpoorly presented;canbemade acceptableifrewritten Repetitive,butcanbe revised

Minorrewriting neededtosupportall itemsmentionedin Materialsand methods Credible Minorrepetitionof dataalreadyincluded intables/othertext, butrewritingcan addressthis

Logicallypresented Summarizes important observations Statesstatistical significanceof findings Credible;answers research question/hypothesis Wellwritten

Findings are totally

Discussion

References

Unqualified statementsand conclusionsare madethatarenot supportedbythe data;conclusions andgoalsnotlinked Studyimplications and/orlimitations notincluded Relevantstudiesnot mentioned Doesntemphasize howstudyadvances knowledgeorstudy doesnotadvance knowledge Misnumbered;list doesntmatchtext Toomanyortoofew (seemanuscript typeguidelines) Outofdate Glaringomissions (clearly,authorsdid notreviewother importantarticles) Failuretoadhereto AMAcitationstyle

Statements,goals,and conclusionsarenotlinked andarenotclearly supportedbydata;major rewritingcouldaddressthis Somestudyimplications and/orlimitationsare missingornotclearly presented Studyhasthepotentialto advanceknowledgeifpaper isrewrittenandkey componentsclearly presented

Statementsand conclusionsare presentedbutneed minorrevisionto correlatewithdata andlinkwithgoals Studyimplications and/orlimitationsare presentedbutare missingapoint(s), whichcanbe addressed Studyadvances knowledge

Statementsand conclusionsare clearlysupportedby dataandarelinked togoals Studyclearly advancesknowledge Studysimplications andlimitationsare completelyand succinctlypresented

Toomanyortoofew,but authorscanaddress Somerefsareoutofdate andimportantrefsare missing,butauthorscanfix vialitsearch;authorsdid makesomeeffortto researchotherimportant articles Notwellcorrelatedwithtext PoorlypreparedreAMA citationstyle

Minor adding/trimming neededinreflist,but listiscurrentand appropriatetoarticle type Listmissingan importantarticle(s); easilyaddressedby authors Needsminorworkto correlatelistwithtext AdherestoAMA citationstyle

Uptodate;relevant Appropriateto manuscripttype Correlatedwellwith text Adherescompletely toAMAcitation style

Tables

Figures

Duplicative/too many/toofew Unnecessary; repeatsmaterialin text Unclear;datadonot correlate with/supporttext Toomany/toofew Notcitedintext Duplicative Poorqualityimages Dontaddto discussion/support goals Missingarrows,etc., onimages;arrows arenotcitedin legends;acronyms notspelledoutin legends Majordiscrepancies withintext,abstract, tables; suspicious/poorly prepared/insufficien t/outdateddata offeringno possibilityof revision;dataare

Toomany/toofew,butcan beaddressedbyauthors Somerepetitionoftext;can befixed Somedataerrors(lackof correlationwithtext)

Minorrevisions neededtocorrelate datawithtext Atablecouldbe added/removed Tablessupportand augmenttext Figuresareacceptable qualityandsupport text/discussion/ hypothesis Minorrevisions neededremissing arrows,etc.

Appropriatenumber oftables Dataintables support/match/ augmenttext

Data

Toomany/toofew(but couldbeaddressedby authors) Correlationto/supportof text/discussion/hypothesisis weak;mustbestrengthened Someimagesarepoor quality;betterimagesmust besubstituted Someproblemswithmissing arrows/arrowsnotcitedin legends,buttopicis importantandartcouldbe fixed Discrepancieswithintext, abstract,tables(e.g.,100 patientsmentionedin abstractand110intext); matherrorsin addition/subtraction/divisio n/mult/equationprep; reviewerbelievesthaterrors canbecorrected

Figuresareexcellent quality Correlatewithand support text/discussion/ hypothesis Addtobodyof knowledgeabout topic

Minorroundingerrors thateasilycanbe corrected

Datamatch throughouttext, tables,abstract; dataareclear, precise,uptodate, original

Writingstyle

Research

similarto/repeat informationfrom priorarticles Poor;often incomprehensible; multiple spelling/grammar/ punctuationerrors; doesntadhereto manuscripttype format Difficulttofollow Insufficient(not fixable)research; Hypothesisnot definedoranswered

Needsmajorrewritingto improveclarity,buttopicis importantandworth reconsideration Repetitive;doesntadhere tomanuscripttypeformat, butcouldbefixed

Minor grammar/punctuation /spellingerrors Somerepetitiveness thateasilycanbefixed

Wellwritten Succinct Adheresto manuscripttype format

Significantnumberof questionsleft unanswered/unresearched (couldbefixed) Hypothesisnotclearly defined

Minorresearchpoints couldbeaddressedby authors Hypothesisdefined andansweredbut authorsshould consideradditional pointssuggestedby reviewers

Thorough;clearly presented Allquestions appropriately answered

Sources: http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/reviewers/peerreviewersguidance(BMJpeerreviewguidelines,completewithtrainingmaterialsforreviewers) http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/101/10/507(affectofpeerreviewtraining) http://jama.amaassn.org/cgi/content/full/280/3/237?ijkey=806201c7d893d43fe88d1c7901a0b059eac3bcc6(blindvsopenpeerreviewstats) http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/150/6/947?ijkey=b943aeaca2bfa783c2cdcee0a3ded084ebde3dfd(seeAppendix1) http://jama.amaassn.org/cgi/contentnw/full/287/21/2786/TABLEJOC11816T1(tableofpeerreviewcriteria)

 http://jama.amaassn.org/cgi/content/full/287/21/2786(moreonpeerreview;seebox) http://jama.amaassn.org/cgi/content/full/287/21/2786(JAMAarticleonpeerreview) http://radiology.rsnajnls.org(alsoRadiologysauthorguidelines)

Provenzale JM, Stanley RJ. A Systematic Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript. AJR 2005; 185:848-854