The purpose of the peer review process is to evaluate the merit of the review while assessing its suitability for publication in Respiratory Care. Each manuscript has been screened by the Editors prior to being sent for peer review. The goal is not only to evaluate the current work, but also to help authors improve their future work.
Do:
- Be kind, honest, professional, and constructive. Constructive, specific feedback is integral to improving the paper if the authors are given the opportunity to revise.
- Read the manuscript at least once before starting your review.
- Consider the quality of writing and the flow of the manuscript.
- Go through each individual section for specific feedback. How to go through each section is detailed below.
- Check that references are timely and relevant. This may involve a literature review to ensure all sources have been cited.
- Evaluate the statistical analysis to the best of your ability. We do not expect all reviewers to have expertise in every type of analysis. You can ask the authors for a more detailed explanation of the statistics used or that they consult with a statistician.
- Make sure the discussion and conclusions are supported by the data presented.
- Check tables and figures for clarity and accuracy. It should be possible to interpret them using only the table/figure and legend.
- Provide numbered or bullet points for feedback; limit each to a single thought. Avoid long paragraphs as it is challenging for authors to respond to multiple points within a single paragraph.
- Evaluate the work presented. You might suggest additional work that could be done or new analyses.
- If the writing is poor, ask that the authors work with an experienced author and/or someone fluent in English science writing as they prepare their revised manuscript.
Don’t:
- Be rude, condescending, or belittling of the work presented.
- Make a decision prior to reading the manuscript. Keep an open mind and judge the paper based on its merits.
- Share the paper with anyone without approval of the Editors.
- Make personal comments about the authors’ credentials, qualifications, or ability to perform the research in question.
- Focus on copyediting, formatting, or minor grammatical errors. These will be corrected during copyediting.
- Make general, vague statements that are difficult to respond to.
- Attempt to rewrite the paper for the authors.
- Make a recommendation without justification.
Make your recommendation:
- Accept – The paper has no issues and is ready for publication. Note that it is unusual to recommend accept on the first submission, without revision.
- Minor Revision – The paper has a few minor issues but is largely ready for publication.
- Major Revision – The paper has some large issues, but still could be accepted if the authors can adequately address the reviewers’ concerns.
- Reject and Resubmit – Implies the paper requires revision nearly analogous to a new submission; it is unclear whether the paper can be made acceptable with revision.
- Reject – The paper has large methodologic flaws, ethical concerns, lacks originality, does not add to the body of knowledge, inadequate sample size, or incorrect statistical analysis. Reject implies that regardless of revision, the paper cannot be rendered acceptable.
Narrative Review: A review article, usually written by an expert on the topic, covering the scientific literature on a given topic. It should be comprehensive, objective, and provide a critical view of the strengths and limitations of the current evidence-base. Narrative reviews may also make recommendations for clinical practice.
- Does the title accurately describe the paper?
- Does the introduction clearly identify the topic, including why the authors decided to review the topic?
- Did the authors thoroughly search and review all relevant literature?
- Are statements within the text supported by references?
- Do the authors provide a balanced review of the available data?
- Do the authors make important conclusions based on the literature?
- Do the authors suggest directions for future research?
- Do the authors have authoritative expertise on this topic?
- If the paper provides practical guidance, does it do so effectively?
- Is the paper well organized and clearly written?
- Are the figures and tables clear and appropriate?
Systematic Review: A comprehensive review that includes a detailed search strategy and seeks to answer a specific research question. Often includes a meta-analysis of existing studies. Systematic reviews should adhere the PRISMA guidelines for reporting.
- Does the introduction clearly identify the topic, including why the authors decided to review the topic?
- Do the authors clearly describe their search strategy? Are there clear inclusion/exclusion criteria?
- Were all relevant databases searched?
- Did the authors appropriately select their primary and secondary outcomes?
- Is a flow diagram provided that maps the number of records identified, included, and excluded, and the reasons for exclusions?
- Was risk of bias assessed?
- Was the statistical analysis done correctly, including sensitivity analysis, heterogeneity, forest plots, and publication bias?
- How did the authors explain and manage the heterogeneity?
- If subgroup analysis was performed, was it necessary and reasonable?
- Is the evidence base sufficient to warrant a systematic review?
- Do the authors have appropriate clinical expertise on the topic?
- Is the paper well organized and clearly written?
- Are the figures and tables clear and appropriate?
- Does the discussion include strengths and limitations of the current work?