Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research

The purpose of the peer review process is to evaluate the scientific merit of the study 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:

1. Be kind, honest, professional, and constructive. Constructive, specific feedback is integral to improving the paper if the authors are given the opportunity to revise.

2. Read the manuscript at least once before starting your review.

3. Consider the quality of writing and the flow of the manuscript. 

4. Go through each individual section for specific feedback. How to go through each section is detailed below.

5. Check that references are timely and relevant. This may involve a literature review to ensure all sources have been cited.

6. 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.

7. Make sure the discussion and conclusions are supported by the data presented.

8. Check tables and figures for clarity and accuracy. It should be possible to interpret them using only the table/figure and legend.

9. 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.

10. Evaluate the work presented. You might suggest additional work that could be done or new analyses. 

11. 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:

1. Be rude, condescending, or belittling of the work presented.

2. Make a decision prior to reading the manuscript. Keep an open mind and judge the paper based on its merits.

3. Share the paper with anyone without approval of the Editors.

4. Make personal comments about the authors’ credentials, qualifications, or ability to perform the research in question.

5. Focus on copyediting, formatting, or minor grammatical errors. These will be corrected during copyediting. 

6. Make general, vague statements that are difficult to respond to. 

7. Attempt to rewrite the paper for the authors. 

8. 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.     

An original research manuscript answers the following questions, as clearly and concisely as possible:

• Why was the study done? (Introduction)

• How did the authors perform the study? (Methods)

• What was discovered? (Results)

• What does it mean? (Discussion)

• What is the take-home message? (Conclusions)

Each section of the paper needs to be focused, with enough details to answer its main question, and individual sections should not contain elements of other sections. Here are specific areas to focus on when reviewing the paper:

Title: Does the paper's title accurately reflect the content? It should be concise and informative when seen in a table of contents, literature search, or bibliography. The title should not include extraneous information such as the study type or methodology used. It should also not be the study’s conclusion.   

Abstract: Is the abstract informative? The abstract is the first thing most people read. It should be clearly written so that individuals who read only the abstract will understand the study’s major findings.

1. Background: Does this section succinctly describe the rationale for the study and the hypothesis being tested?

2. Methods: Are the methods clearly described?

3. Results: Are all relevant outcomes included? Are the primary/secondary outcomes presented?

4. Conclusions: Are the conclusions supported by the data?

5. Is the information in abstract consistent with the body of the manuscript? 

6. A list of keywords should be provided after the abstract. Are the keywords complete and appropriate? 

1. Is the background information adequate to introduce the research topic?

2. Are the specific study objectives or hypotheses clearly stated?

3. Is the writing clear and concise?

• Randomized controlled trials should follow CONSORT guidelines, observational trials should follow STROBE guidelines, and quality improvement studies should follow SQUIRE guidelines.

• Randomized controlled trials should include randomization method, blinding, and screening.

• Bench studies should clearly state the equipment used, number of measurements, and rationale for how the study was conducted. 

• Surveys should describe how the survey was developed, what strategies were performed to validate it, and any procedures used to test or modify it.

1. Are there outcome variables described for each study objective or hypothesis? 

2. Are there clear, valid descriptions of how measured and calculated values were acquired? 

3. Are outcome variables unrelated to the objectives or hypotheses avoided?

4. Are the measurement procedures appropriate for the study objectives or hypotheses?

5. Is the sample size calculated based on the primary outcome?

6. Is the sample size calculation correct?

7. Is there enough detail to judge validity and for readers to replicate the study?

8. Were appropriate statistical methods chosen for this study design?

9. Are supplementary files used for items such as survey instruments and methodology too detailed for this section? 

10. Is the writing in this section clear and concise?

1. Are there complete data for each variable described in the methods section?

2. Are the data clearly presented?

3. Is a flow chart included that clearly identifies the number of patients screened, the reasons individuals were excluded, and the number of subjects allocated to different treatment groups?

4. Are data unrelated to the study objectives or hypotheses included?

5. Are the tables and figures clear and relevant to the study?

6. Does the text avoid presenting the same data as the tables or illustrations?

7. Does the section flow well, with primary analyses first, followed by secondary or post-hoc analysis?

8. Are summary data and P-values rounded appropriately? 

9. Is methodology presented in this section? (It should not be.)

10. Are data included in supplementary material that should be included in the body of the paper or vice versa?

11. Is the writing clear and concise?

1. Is there an explanation of how the results address the problem statement or hypotheses?

2. Are theoretical and practical aspects of the results discussed?

3. Do you agree with the interpretation of the results?

4. Is there a comparison of this study with previously published studies?

5. Are the references adequate?

6. Are additional results presented in this section? (There should not be.)

7. Limitations should be clearly stated in a separate paragraph.

8. Do the authors avoid inflating the importance of their study?

9. Is the writing in this section clear and concise?

Conclusions: Authors should clearly state the conclusions to be drawn from the study. 

1. Are methods and results (data) presented in this section? (There should not be.)

2. Is the take-home message clear? 

3. Do the authors avoid inflating the importance of their study?

4. Is the writing in this section clear and concise?

• Editors will instruct the authors to format references in the style of the Journal.

1. Are supplementary files called out from the body of the manuscript? 

2. If there is more than one supplementary file, are they numbered?

3. Is the supplementary material needed?

4. Is there anything included with the manuscript that should be moved to a supplementary file?