Archives of Plastic Surgery

  • 제49권4호
  • /
  • Pages.538-542
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2234-6163(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-6171(eISSN)
대한성형외과학회 (Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Ten Tips for Performing Your First Peer Review: The Next Step for the Aspiring Academic Plastic Surgeon

  • Frendo, Martin (Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Center for HR & Education) ;
  • Frithioff, Andreas (Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Center for HR & Education) ;
  • Andersen, Steven Arild Wuyts (Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Center for HR & Education)
  • 발행 : 2022.07.15
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Performing the first peer review of a plastic surgical research article can be an overwhelming task. However, it is an essential scholarly skill and peer review is used in a multitude of settings: evaluation of journal articles, conference abstracts, and research proposals. Furthermore, peer reviewing provides more than just the opportunity to read and help improve other's work: peer reviewing can improve your own scientific writing. A structured approach is possible and recommended. In these ten tips, we provide guidance on how to successfully conduct the first peer reviews. The ten tips on peer reviewing concern: 1) Appropriateness: are you qualified and prepared to perform the peer review? 2) Familiarization with the journal and its reviewing guidelines; 3) Gathering first impressions of the paper followed by specific tips for reviewing; 4) the abstract and introduction; 5) Materials, methods, and results (including statistical considerations); and 6) discussion, conclusion, and references. Tip 7 concerns writing and structuring the review; Tips 7 and 8 describe how to provide constructive criticism and understanding the limits of your expertise. Finally, Tip 10 details why-and how-you become a peer reviewer. Peer review can be done by any plastic surgeon, not just those interested in an academic career. These ten tips provide useful insights for both the aspiring and the experienced peer reviewer. In conclusion, a systematic approach to peer reviewing is possible and recommended, and can help you getting started to provide quality peer reviews that contribute to moving the field of plastic surgery forward.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006;99(04):178-182 https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609900414
  2. Jefferson TO, Alderson P, Davidoff F, et al. Editorial peer-review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;2007(02):MR000016
  3. Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA 1990;263(10):1321-1322 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100021002
  4. Burnham JC. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA 1990;263(10):1323-1329 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100023003
  5. Rennie D. Editorial peer review: its development and rationale. Peer Rev Health Sci 2003;2:1-13
  6. Wilson JPeer review: the nuts and bolts [Internet]. London: Sense about Science; c2013 [cited year month day]. Accessed November 3, 2020 at: https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-the-nuts-and-bolts/
  7. Hames I. Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist. Sci Ed 2016;3:36-42 https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.61
  8. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328(7441):673 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.ae
  9. Kim YH. How to review a paper for Archives of Plastic Surgery, communicate as a reviewer, and handle disagreements with authors. Arch Plast Surg 2018;45(01):1-3 https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2017.01711
  10. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA 1990;263(10):1371-1376 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100079012
  11. Moher D, Jadad AR. How to peer review a manuscript. Peer Rev Health Sci 2003;2:183-190
  12. Chung KJ. The peer review system of Archives of Plastic Surgery: current status and plans for improvement. Arch Plast Surg 2019;46(03):187-188 https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2019.00528
  13. Medical Teacher. Reviewing for Medical Teacher [Internet] [cited 2018 Oct 24]
  14. Laine C, Winker MA. Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2017;27(02):285-291 https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.031
  15. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations: responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process [Internet]. ICMJE; c2017 [cited 2018 Sep 22] Available at: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submissionand-peer-peview-process.html
  16. Simera I. Reporting guidelines: a tool to increase completeness, transparency, and value of health research published in your journal. In: Smart P, Maisonneuve H, Polderman A, eds. Science Editors' Handbook. Gloucestershire, UK: European Association of Science Editors; 2013:171-174
  17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DGPRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6(07):e1000097 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  18. Cheng A, Kessler D, Mackinnon R, et al; International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research, and Education (INSPIRE) Reporting Guidelines Investigators. Reporting guidelines for health care simulation research: extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE statements. Adv Simul (Lond) 2016;1:25 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-016-0025-y
  19. The EQUATOR Network. SAMPL guidelines for statistical reporting [Internet]. The EQUATOR Network; c2013 [cited 2019 Dec 18] Available at: https://www.equator-network.org/2013/02/11/sampl-guidelines-for-statistical-reporting/
  20. Bland JM, Altman DG. Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ 1995;310(6973):170 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.310.6973.170
  21. Kim SY, Yi HJ, Huh S. Current and planned adoption of data sharing policies by editors of Korean scholarly journals. Sci Ed 2019;6:19-24 https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.151
  22. Kliewer MA. Writing it up: a step-by-step guide to publication for beginning investigators. Am J Roentgenol 2005;185(03):591-596 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.185.3.01850591
  23. Hwang K. Appropriate roles for the subscriber, publisher, editor, author, and reviewer in the archives of plastic surgery. Arch Plast Surg 2013;40(06):663-665 https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2013.40.6.663
  24. Lee SY. Tips on writing and reviewing articles as a non-English speaking medical doctor. Arch Plast Surg 2015;42(01):1-3 https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2015.42.1.1
  25. Whang Y. Reviewing a journal article with clarity and politeness: key language tips for non-native English-speaking reviewers. Sci Ed 2020;7:204-208 https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.220
  26. Bacchetti P. Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem. BMJ 2002;324(7348):1271-1273 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7348.1271