Role of Reviewers in International Journals

Prof. Dr. Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP (then director of the Kurdistan Board of Neurology Sulaymaniyah) gave a lecture to postgraduate trainees about the Role of Reviewers in International Journals. Part of a workshop.

1. Role of Reviewers in International Journals Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin MRCP(UK), MRCP(Ireland), FRCP(Edin), FRCP( Glasg ), FRCP(Dublin), FRCP(Lond), FACP, FAHA, FCCP, FRSA Consultant Neurologist and Associate Professor of Neurology

2. Who is a Reviewer and How? A person who is invited by a scholarly journal to review a submitted manuscript (research article, meta-analysis, case series, etc.) Or, he could be a member of the editorial team of that journal The reviewing process can be internal, commissioned Or external, non-commissioned An expert in the field with a background of research, publications, and editorial history

3. Core Value? Peer-review is a vital part of the quality control mechanism Therefore, it is used to determine what is published , and what is not ?

4. Process? After the manuscript has been submitted (and fulfilling the authors’ guidelines), the editor-in-chief or associate editor will send it to a peer-review process Usually 2-3 reviewers will review the manuscript The reviewers should send their “review” usually within 2 weeks (more or less, depending on the editorial policy of the journal)

5. Types? Single-blinded review: the reviewers' identities are withheld from the authors, but the reviewers are aware who wrote the paper they are evaluating This system has been heavily criticized for having the potential for bias because work originating from certain authors, institutions, or geographic regions may be treated more or less critically Double-blinded review: the identity of the authors is also masked during the review process. Both the authors and the reviewers are unaware of each other's identity More preferred and is a much fairer method

6. Reviewing What? The manuscript in terms of: Study design and methodology Statistics and results (including tables and figures) Discussion: how the authors defend their findings and compare them with published national and international papers References Grammar, punctuation, and language Plagiarism and proper citation

7. The Review/Comments Comments to the authors: The review should be clear and unbiased, addressing any faults and drawbacks. It may also include suggestions/recommendations as what to do. Comments to editor: These should confidential (not disclosed). The reviewers directly address the editor-in-chief about something they believe critical

8. Decision Recommended by the Reviewers? Reject : The submission cannot be published. Many journals have a high rejection rate. Major revision : This is the 2 nd commonest outcome. It needs re-reviewing by the same or different reviewers. Minor revision : Uncommon. Needs re-reviewing by the editor-in-chief only (no reviewers involved). Accept (as it is): This is extremely rare.

9. Notes: “Reviewing” a manuscript in most of the times is a form of voluntary work; unpaid. However, it improves your writing skills, social networking (with peers), and CV. Via online user-friendly platforms; e-mails; or rarely paperwork-like! There is a form that is filled in by the reviewer and to insert his comments/recommendations. Sometimes, there is a scoring system for the priority and novelty of the submitted work. Nowadays, there is a trend towards “ Open Peer-Review ”: the identities of the reviewers (and their comments) and authors are disclosed to each other, openly. Example, the BMJ Group

10. Example: Confidential Notes to the Editor - The authors have violated the methodological principles used in their study. They have selected the wrong statistical tests to analyze the data. Therefore, the conclusions that the authors make are erroneous. - These fatal flaws make the manuscript unable to be revised or published. The authors will have to start over with their study.

11. Example: Comments on a re-submitted article after a major revision round: The authors have clarified several of the questions I raised in my previous review. Unfortunately, most of the major problems have not been addressed by this revision. As I stated in my previous review, I deem it unlikely that all those issues can be solved merely by a few added paragraphs. Instead, there are still some fundamental concerns with the experimental design and, most critically, with the analysis. This means the strong conclusions put forward by this manuscript are not warranted and I cannot approve the manuscript in this form .

12. Which one of the following is the correct statement with respect to the role of journals’ reviewers? Reviewers usually submit their comments within one week to the editor The single-blinded method of peer-review is the preferred one “Comments to the editor” should be confidential and not disclosed to the author(s) Most of the submitted manuscripts are accepted after a minor peer-review process Most of the times, reviewers are paid Answer: c

13. Regarding the duties of journals’ reviewers and peer-review process, choose the correct statement? The majority of submitted research articles should be reviewed by one reviewer Most reviewers are external and non-commissioned Peer-reviewing does not improve the reviewer’s resume Any one can be a reviewer for a scholarly journal The editor-in-chief cannot review a submitted manuscript Answer: b

14. Thank you