Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Tutorial

How to review a surgical paper: a guide for junior referees

Authors: Philip F. Stahel, Ernest E. Moore

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Reviewing a surgical manuscript is not an easy task, and there is no formal training available for young referees in the early stage of their careers. Accepting a peer review assignment represents a personal honor for the invited referee and a fundamental ethical responsibility towards the scientific community. Designated reviewers must be accomplished and knowledgeable in the area of the respective topic of investigation. More importantly, they must be aware and cognizant about the cardinal ethical responsibility and stewardship for ensuring the preservation of scientific knowledge of unbiased and unquestionable accuracy in the published literature. Accepting a review assignment should never be taken lightly or considered a simple task, regardless of the reviewer’s level of seniority and expertise. Indeed, there are multiple challenges, difficulties, and ‘hidden dangers’ that jeopardize the completion of a high-quality review, particularly in the hands of less experienced or novice reviewers. The present article was designed to provide a brief, concise, and practical guide on how to review manuscripts for the ‘junior referee’ in the field of surgery.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:422–8.CrossRefPubMed Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:422–8.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Guller U, DeLong ER. Interpreting statistics in medical literature: a vade mecum for surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198(3):441–58.CrossRefPubMed Guller U, DeLong ER. Interpreting statistics in medical literature: a vade mecum for surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198(3):441–58.CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
go back to reference Guller U. Surgical outcomes research based on administrative data: inferior or complementary to prospective randomized clinical trials? World J Surg. 2006;30(3):255–66.CrossRefPubMed Guller U. Surgical outcomes research based on administrative data: inferior or complementary to prospective randomized clinical trials? World J Surg. 2006;30(3):255–66.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Lawrentschuk N, McCall J, Guller U. Critical appraisal of meta-analyses: an introductory guide for the practicing surgeon. Patient Saf Surg. 2009;3(1):16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lawrentschuk N, McCall J, Guller U. Critical appraisal of meta-analyses: an introductory guide for the practicing surgeon. Patient Saf Surg. 2009;3(1):16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Greco T, Zangrillo A, Biondi-Zoccai G, Landoni G. Meta-analysis: pitfalls and hints. Heart Lung Vessel. 2013;5(4):219–25.PubMedPubMedCentral Greco T, Zangrillo A, Biondi-Zoccai G, Landoni G. Meta-analysis: pitfalls and hints. Heart Lung Vessel. 2013;5(4):219–25.PubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Osimani B. Until RCT proven? On the asymmetry of evidence requirements for risk assessment. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19(3):454–62.CrossRefPubMed Osimani B. Until RCT proven? On the asymmetry of evidence requirements for risk assessment. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19(3):454–62.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Patel J. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Medicine. 2014;12:128.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Patel J. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Medicine. 2014;12:128.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Qual Rep Meta Analys Lancet. 1999;354(9193):1896–900. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Qual Rep Meta Analys Lancet. 1999;354(9193):1896–900.
11.
13.
14.
go back to reference Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, Yazdi F, Turner L, Thielman J, et al. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:g3804.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, Yazdi F, Turner L, Thielman J, et al. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:g3804.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Korevaar DA, van Enst WA, Spijker R, Bossuyt PM, Hooft L. Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD. Evid Based Med. 2014;19(2):47–54.CrossRefPubMed Korevaar DA, van Enst WA, Spijker R, Bossuyt PM, Hooft L. Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD. Evid Based Med. 2014;19(2):47–54.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84.CrossRefPubMed Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Cobo E, Cortes J, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Selva-O’Callaghan A, Kostov B, et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d6783.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cobo E, Cortes J, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Selva-O’Callaghan A, Kostov B, et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d6783.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
19.
go back to reference Sauaia A, Moore EE, Crebs JL, Maier RV, Hoyt DB, Shackford SR. The anatomy of an article: title, abstract, and introduction. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;76(5):1322–7.CrossRefPubMed Sauaia A, Moore EE, Crebs JL, Maier RV, Hoyt DB, Shackford SR. The anatomy of an article: title, abstract, and introduction. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;76(5):1322–7.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Stahel PF, Mauffrey C. Evidence-based medicine: A ‘hidden threat’ for patient safety and surgical innovation? Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B:997–9.CrossRefPubMed Stahel PF, Mauffrey C. Evidence-based medicine: A ‘hidden threat’ for patient safety and surgical innovation? Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B:997–9.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Snyder CW, Weinberg JA, McGwin GJ, Melton SM, George RL, Reiff DA, et al. The relationship of blood product ratio to mortality: survival benefit or survival bias? J Trauma. 2009;66(2):358–62. discussion 362-354.CrossRefPubMed Snyder CW, Weinberg JA, McGwin GJ, Melton SM, George RL, Reiff DA, et al. The relationship of blood product ratio to mortality: survival benefit or survival bias? J Trauma. 2009;66(2):358–62. discussion 362-354.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Phillips B, Clark DE, Nathens AB, Shiloach M, Freel AC. Comparison of injury patient information from hospitals with records in both the national trauma data bank and the nationwide inpatient sample. J Trauma. 2008;64(3):768–79.CrossRefPubMed Phillips B, Clark DE, Nathens AB, Shiloach M, Freel AC. Comparison of injury patient information from hospitals with records in both the national trauma data bank and the nationwide inpatient sample. J Trauma. 2008;64(3):768–79.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Sauaia A, Moore EE, Crebs J, Maier R, Hoyt DB, Shackford SR. The anatomy of an article: the discussion section - “How does the article I read today change what I will recommend to my patients tomorrow?”. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;74(6):1599–602.CrossRefPubMed Sauaia A, Moore EE, Crebs J, Maier R, Hoyt DB, Shackford SR. The anatomy of an article: the discussion section - “How does the article I read today change what I will recommend to my patients tomorrow?”. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;74(6):1599–602.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
How to review a surgical paper: a guide for junior referees
Authors
Philip F. Stahel
Ernest E. Moore
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0578-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Medicine 1/2016 Go to the issue