Guideline for a Starters in Reviewing. a Journal for the J Neurogastroenterol Motil

Transcription

1 Guideline for a Starters in Reviewing a Journal for the J Neurogastroenterol Motil

2 Review process of J Neurogastroenterol Motil Authors Submit a manuscript to JNM homepage. Manuscript editor Check a manuscript by author s guidelines and send it to academic editors. Editors ( and editorial boards ) Review the manuscripts submitted to JNM for quality and fit within the scope of the JNM. Decide the peer reviewers in the relevant fields. Peer reviewers Review thoroughly the manuscripts and assess the important things, such as title, theme, research design, methology, validity, originality and academic significance of findings. Make a report to the editor which include a recommendation to accept, reject, to ask the authors to modify and resubmit.

3 Review process of J Neurogastroenterol Motil Editors Consider reviewers reports and recommendations. Decide to accept or reject finally. Recommend the authors to respond to the reviewers comments and suggestions. At the same time plagiarism is checked by etblast and ithenticate. Authors Respond to comments and suggestions. Editors Make final decision to accept for publication or reject. Editors, Authors, Reviewers and Manuscript editor Make and correct the complete manuscript for publication. Publication by the printed and on-line (open access)

4 Scope of J Neurogastroenterol and Motil (I) Clinical 1. NERD, GERD, Functional and Other Esophageal and Oropharyngeal Disorders 2. Functional Dyspepsia, Gastroparesis, and Other Gastroduodenal and Intestinal Motility and Functional Disorders 3. Constipation, IBS, and Other Colonic Functional and Motility Disorders 4. Fecal Incontinence, Pelvic Floor Disorders and Other Anorectal Functional GI Disorders 5. Functional disorders of the gallbladder and sphincter of Oddi 6. Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders: Epidemiology and Genetics 7. Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders: Psychosocial, Psychotherapeutic, and Alternative Therapeutics 8. Appetite regulation, Satiety, and Obesity 9. Brain Gut Interactions 10. Human Brain Imaging 11. Functional and Motility Disorders in Children and Adolescents 12. Pharmacotherapeutics of Functional and Motility Disorders, and Pharmacogenomics 13. Imaging of Gastrointestinal Motility Disorders 14. Gut microbiota 15. Food and Gastrointestinal Functional Disorders 16. Aging and Gastrointestinal Function

5 Scope of J Neurogastroenterol and Motil (II) Basic 1. Visceral Pain and Sensation 2. Signaling: Hormones, Neurotransmitters, Receptors, Channels, and Secondary Messengers 3. Extrinsic Neural Pathways: Afferents and Efferents 4. Enteric Nervous System, Glia, and Enterochromaffin Cells 5. GI Neuromotor Control, Interstitial Cells of Cajal, and Smooth Muscle 6. Neuroimmune Modulation of Gut Function including Inflammation and Infection 5

6 Scope of J Neurogastroenterol and Motil (III) Others 1. Statistical Analysis 2. Meta-analysis 6

7 Ten Rules for Reviewing a manuscript Review a manuscript only if you can do so objectively Review a manuscript only if you can do so in a timely manner Understand your role Recognize the authors efforts and the merits of the work while being clear in identifying faults Be critical, but be constructive Be judicious in suggesting additional work Leave it to future generations to judge a manuscript s impact Be a champion for your field Remember that it is not your paper Be a good role model Drubin DG. Editor-in-Chief, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 2011

8 Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology Questionnaire to 989 reviewers requesting specific information regarding the age, sex, radiology subspecialty, number of years serving as a reviewer, academic rank, and practice type of the reviewer 1. Correlation analysis shows that the quality score of reviewers strongly correlated with younger age (P = 0.001). 2. A statistically significant correlation between quality score and practice type was seen (P = 0.008), with reviewers from academic institutions receiving higher scores 3. No significant correlation was found between quality score and sex (P = 0.72), years of reviewing (P = 0.26), academic rank (P = 0.10) or the ultimate disposition of the manuscript (P = 0.40). No variation was observed by subspecialty (P = 0.99). AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005:184:1731 8

9 JNM s formal report form for the reviewers (1) Title : JNM Major comments (Please summarize a theme of the reviewed manuscript and state opinion on originality and academic interest) Specific essential comments (Please describe essential comments in detail that need to be corrected for acceptance, after reviewing whole manuscript) Do you think the title and abstract are adequate or acceptable? Yes ( ) No ( ): Please comment specifically.

10 JNM s formal report form for the reviewers (2) Do you think the method of statistics should be considered by the statistical editor or experts? Yes ( ): Please explain specifically. No ( ) Do you think the tables and figures in reviewed manuscript are acceptable? Yes ( ) No ( ): Please comment about points for improvement of table and figures. Need to check-up English ( ) Acceptable for publishing ( ) The editor has to correct minor errors before publishing ( ) Major English correction ( ) Very poor writing and language, and it could be a reason for rejection Others

11 JNM s formal report form for the reviewers (3) Final decision: ( ) Accept without revision ( ) Major revision and Resubmit ( ) Accept after minor revision ( ) Reject: please check more than one among the reasons as follows, ( ) Incongruence for JNM scope ( ) Lack of scientific originality and creativity ( ) Lack of academic interest ( ) Inappropriate study s design/leap of logic ( ) Fundamental error for a manuscript ( ) Ethical issues: Plagiarism, dual publication Please write reason(s) of rejection with a courteous and modest expression.

12 Example of recommended review (1) 12

13 4) Discussion Section; The authors should make a discussion section concisely. 1. They should suggest the strong point of their study st paragraph of discussion does not needed because it is already known. 3. They should describe the answer to the AIM. The aim of this study was to compare sleep dysfunction, depressive mood, anxiety and quality of life (QOL) between erosive reflux disease (ERD) and nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) patients in Korea. Conclusions are The patients with NERD than ERD were more suffer from the symptoms and disturbance in Korea. Sleep dysfunction and anxiety mood were higher and QOL was decreased, especially, in NERD. Without their present study, we can expect above things. They should analyze the results and suggest the noble conclusion. For example, why the NERD patients felt severe symptoms? This would be due to sleep disturbance or depression? Or just because they have sensitive esophagus? 1. Last part of discussion; they expressed NERD patients felt GERD symptoms more frequently, I think the term of frequently is not appropriate, they just investigated symptom severity instead of frequency. 5) The authors should check Table 3 thoroughly. 1. Multivariate analysis should have odds ratio and 95% confidence interval. 2. Regarding statistic figures: in terms of HADS score, the gap between NERD and control increased more comparing the gap between ERD and control, however, the statistics figures seems not to be correlated with each other. I think, the statistic figures seems to be changed between (control vs ERD) and (control vs NERD). 3. In terms of WHOQOL Total, the statistic figures of (control vs ERD) and (control vs NERD) are both? Is it correct? 1. The authors should check the grammar error in conclusion of Abstract. The patients were suffer from symptoms.? 13

14 Example of recommended review (2) Major comments How was sample size calculated? What is the power of the present sample size? 1. Patients with IBS-C showed reduced level of serum serotonin compared to controls and patients with IBS-D (48.9 ± 4.2 vs ± 4.6 and 92.5 ± 8.3, P < 0.001and P = 0.003, respectively). - what is the unit of measurement? 2. Introduction is somewhat long. It may be shortened and more focused. 3. For subtyping of IBS, were Rome III criteria or Asian criteria used? 4. Was tissue serotonin more appropriate than serum serotonin levels? 5. Mention standard deviation of age. Was the age of patients and controls significantly different? What was the p value? In fact, age and gender is not matched in this study. In polymorphisms study, age and gender should be matched in case and controls. 6. How many patients underwent colonoscopy? 7. HWE is calculated in control population not in patients. (page no. 9, line no. 10) 8. Result part is not clear. Authors should first give demographic details of patients with IBS and healthy subjects, secondly genotype distribution among patients with IBS and healthy subjects and finally give genotype distribution among subtypes of IBS. 9.. First authors should present the crude Odds ratio and p values and then adjusted Odds ratio 10.. Most of the studied SNPs studied did not reach significant; it may be due to small sample size (type II error) Authors should present genotype-symptom correlation, if associated. Specific essential comments Short title: Genetic polymorphism in IBS - this is quite non-specific. Authors should specify what polymorphism did they study 1. Punctuation error in many sentences. 2. In discussion part, authors should give a summary of the major result of the study in first paragraph before starting to discuss

15 This slide for Korean reviewers 전문가심사를위한지침 1. 심사수용 : 제목, 초록, 전문성, 이해관계, 시간적여유? 2. 일차읽기 : 3. 이차읽기 : 4. 의견서작성 : 빨리읽어본다. 최신문헌검토 원저성, 완전성, 객관성, 독자이해, 심사의엄격성 반려의견 : 고심하면서 근거가내는관련문헌이나자료를제시하면서거부의견을표현 중복출판, 표절 윤리적문제 : 이해관계, 원고누출, 더딘심사 편집인에게알리고심사를하지않아야 5. Down to Earth : showing reason and being practical 홍성태. 의학논문매력있게쓰자 " 15

16 This slide for Korean reviewers 전문심사자의견서작성전고려할것 Down to Earth : showing reason and being practical and prati 연구배경의중요함 원저 showing reason and practical 결과에서방법, 실험방법, 통계방법, 해석의장단점 서술스타일과적절한그림, 테이블제시 윤리문제 ( 동물, 사람 ) 16

17 This slide for Korean reviewers 전문가심사의견서통보시유의점 1. 편집인이보낸양식을사용 2. 학생지도가아니라동료의연구결과물을평가임을인식 3. 실험을다시하라, 논문을다시작성하라 는식의표현은삼가야 4. 학술적인문제점을분명하게지적 5. 대안을제시하면서지적해야 6. 게재거부인경우는근거를제시 7. 심사자도심사결과의견서로평가를받는다는사실을인식할필요있음 17

18 This slide for Korean reviewers 편집인이판단하는심사의질 심사를철저히하고이해하고있는가? 심사시간이적절한가? 저자에게제시하는내용이적절한근거를가졌는가? 건설적인비평인가? ( 비판이아닌 ) 객관적인가? 원고출판여부에대해서편집자에게명쾌한설명을하는가? 18