The Peer Review Process for Clinical Abstracts and Manuscripts: Helpful Tips from the POSNA Evidence Based Medicine Committee (original) (raw)
Related papers
When readers screen the title of an article, and parts of its abstract, they try to determine whether or not to devote their scarce time to reading on. Some may be screening literature to identify the articles that are systematic reviews. Thus, the main function of an abstract of a systematic review should be to signal its systematic methodology. For most readers, the findings described in the abstract will also be key, either as the sole part of an article that will be read, or to determine whether reading the full text is required. Abstracts of systematic reviews are very important, as some readers cannot access the full paper, such that abstracts may be the only option for gleaning research results. This can be because of a pay wall, low Internet download capacity, or if the full article is only available in a language not understood by the reader. Readers in countries where English is not the primary language may have access to an abstract translated to their own language, but not to a translated full text. Conversely, a large proportion of systematic reviews are published by health technology agencies in non-English speaking countries [1], many of which provide only the abstract in English.
Evidence-based abstracts: what research summaries should contain to support evidence-based medicine
International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 2012
The practice of evidence-based medicine involves the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from the systematic retrieval of the most current literature. Clinicians need to conduct a critical appraisal of the medical articles they access. However, clinicians in developing countries usually lack access to the best resources for evidence-based practice (EBP). The abstracts of 100 of the most recently published randomised controlled trials were used in the present study. These abstracts were critically appraised using a new questionnaire. Questions 1 to 8 were answerable by 38%, 26%, 52%, 23%, 12%, 53%, 36% and 12%, respectively, of the examined summaries. EBP requires better access to medical resources. Therefore, the summaries of relevant studies should be complete and self-sufficient to support EBP. This means a research summary should adequately report the findings of a clinical trial without needing to access the full text.
An Introduction to Reviewing Research Articles for Academic Journals
HCA Healthcare Journal of Medicine
Among the pillars of science is the galvanizing process of peer review. Editors of medical and scientific publications recruit specialty leaders to evaluate the quality of manuscripts. These peer reviewers help to ensure that data are collected, analyzed, and interpreted as accurately as possible, thereby moving the field forward and ultimately improving patient care. As physician-scientists, we are given the opportunity and responsibility to participate in the peer review process. There are many benefits to engaging in the peer review process including exposure to cutting-edge research, growing your connection with the academic community, and fulfilling the scholarly activity requirements of your accrediting organization. In the present manuscript, we discuss the key components of the peer review process and hope that it will serve as a primer for the novice reviewer and as a useful guide for the experienced reviewer.
[Guide for peer reviewers of scientific article]
Lijec̆nic̆ki vjesnik
Despite its shortcomings, peer review is still the best tool of scientific publishing. It brings benefits not only to the journal and its authors, but to the peer reviewers: they are privileged to have an insight into the latest research and still unpublished results in their scientific field. Reviewers also build up their ability to critically assess scientific papers, which may be useful in their own professional work and development. We wrote these brief guidelines to help Croatian-speaking physicians to satisfactorily respond in case they receive a scientific journal editor's request for a manuscript review. The guidelines were created primarily for new reviewers, but they may be useful as a refresher text for experienced reviewers.