Weiner's 10 Rules for Peer Review, a Tweetorial!

#MedTwitter #AcademicTwitter #AcademicChatter #UroSoMe @JUrology @EUplatinum @urogoldjournal @EurUrolOncol @EurUrolFocus @UrolOncol #MedEd @OpenAcademics @AcademicsSay

A bit of background...

I love being a part of the review process

I've reviewed for a number of journals & have done >200 reviews total

I truly think quality peer-reviews can help advance a field

To that end, I hope this thread helps to engender future, quality reviews!

1)Be specific

Comments such as "this doesn't make sense" or "I don't understand this sentence" are often not productive

Alternatives include "In this sentence, it is not clear if *** is referring to X or Y. Can the authors clarify?"

2) Be kind

Authors respond more completely to kind & constructive comments. Just think, what would you want to read if you were the author?

Instead of "the authors inappropriately write..."

Consider "the authors could rephrase this sentence to more accurately reflect..."

3) Write an organized review

I tend to write comments as I read the paper & label based on the section from the manuscript

Number each comment - kinda like this thread ;-)

This will really help the authors address each of your comments completely and stay organized

4) Comment as if you want the text to improve

I act as if I'm a co-author when I review & I genuinely think about what should be revised even if I ultimately don't support the paper for publication

With this approach you will often find more items you feel warrant revision

5) Summarize the paper

Provide a summary of the paper stating the study type (observational, trial, etc), details (sample size, study period, etc), primary outcome/result, & implications

This shows the authors/editors your read the paper completely and reviewed thoughtfully

6) If possible, write a note to the editor

Make the job for the editor easy

What are your recommending and why?

"If the authors can address issue *** then I think it would be suitable for publication"

"Due to the flaw with ***, I cannot support this work for publication"

7) Use guidelines to review

Don't re-invent the wheel. There are innumerable guidelines on scientific writing that you can reference in your reviews

( see below - some are specific to urology but still broadly useful)

A few guidelines I frequently reference in reviews

Statistics for Clinical Research in Urology @VickersBiostats
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30580902/ 

Systematic reviews/Meta-analyses @EUplatinum
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28917594/ 

CONSORT
http://www.consort-statement.org/ 

EQUATOR
https://www.equator-network.org/ 

8) Think of reviewing as a chance to learn

Peer-reviewing takes times, but I can attribute large gains in writing/presentation skills to reviewing for many types of works on various topics

I also learn a lot about my field

Don't underestimate these benefits to reviewing

9) It's ok to spend less time on a paper w/ fatal issues

Your time as an academician is valuable

The editors do their best to filter out works that would probably not be suitable for publication, but they can't be perfect

State the fatal issue & be decisive in your rec

10) Be clear about your expertise

Are you able to evaluate the statistical modeling or a particular experiment?

If so, say it

If not, make it clear to the editor what you evaluated and what would require an assessment from someone else

A final note - this is my approach that I've gotten use to

There are a lot of different approaches

@PLOSONE has a nice one

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020110

I'd suggest you find the system that works best for you - I'd love to hear others share theirs

Happy reviewing!