Criteria/Article Reject Major Revision Minor Revision Accept
Originality/Impact No Yes Yes Yes Abstract • Missing; poorly • Errors in data (compared • Minor data errors • All components written; with text, tables, figures); (rounding errors; present; • Content doesn’t • Poorly written (incomplete minor mismatch with • Data are accurate match text; sentences, needs major text/tables/figures); and match text; • Stated rewriting for sense and • Components present • Well‐written, objective/methods/ flow); but may need minor concise, clear results/conclusions • Components (objective/ writing for readability • Subject matter is missing or methods/results/conclusion • Subject matter is original, incomprehensible s) missing or unclear original and important pressworthy, of • Subject matter is not • Subject matter is of major general fresh, new; content specialized or moderate interest is not original; interest, or of major interest material is of only if paper is substantially marginal general revised interest Introduction • Missing; poorly • Needs major rewriting for • Minor data errors • Well‐written, written (would sense and flow; data errors (e.g., rounding errors); concise; require major (data do don’t match • Minor rewriting; • Hypothesis and rewriting for sense; text/tables/figures; hypothesis is clearly purpose of study are • No clear statement • Hypothesis and objective presented and is clearly and concisely of why study was not clearly stated; supported by text presented performed); • Inadequate references (but • References are • Data are accurate; • Hypothesis missing, could be fixed via lit review) adequate hypotheses are weak, or unclear; • IRB/HIPAA documentation correctly presented • Intro text doesn’t missing and fully supported match/support body by text text; • Current references • Multiple data errors that will be of or data are interest to readers questionable; • Inadequate or outdated references or too many references (and little chance of this flaw being fixed) • IRB/HIPAA documentation missing Materials and • Unfixable flaws in • Flaws in data and/or • Minor data errors that • Data are accurate Methods data/research numerous are easily fixed • All research (number/selection errors/mismatches in data • Adequately written, components are of subjects; that potentially can be fixed; although writing could present, clearly instruments/drugs • Poorly written (incomplete be polished; minor stated used; sentences, needs major typos/grammar/ • Procedures are blinded/unblinded; rewriting for sense and punctuation errors clear, concise, and independent vs flow); • Description of easily replicable; consensus readings) grammar/punctuation/ procedures needs article advances • Description of spelling errors that detract minor clarification knowledge procedures missing from readability; (clearly remediable) • All compliance or so unclear that • Description of procedures • Too many/too few guidelines are met others couldn’t unclear; would be difficult figures/tables (easily • Tables/figures reproduce study, for others to reproduce remediable) contribute with little likelihood study by reading article, substantially to that deficit could be although with major content fixed; rewriting, deficit could be • IRB/HIPAA remedied compliance • Tables/figures need major statements missing work • Questionable data and/or major errors in data/statistical methods; • No new information is imparted; poorly written/hard to understand; • Inadequate/missing figures/tables • Multiple grammar/ punctuation/spelling errors and language grasp Results • Missing or • Support of • Minor rewriting • Logically presented completely hypothesis/research needed to support all • Summarizes unsupportive of question/items mentioned items mentioned in important items mentioned in in Materials and Methods Materials and observations Materials and unclear, but key methods • States statistical Methods components are present and • Credible significance of • Does not answer the major rewriting can address • Minor repetition of findings research question lack of clarity data already included • Credible; answers • Not credible • Credible, but poorly in tables/other text, research • Statistical presented; can be made but rewriting can question/hypothesis significance of acceptable if rewritten address this • Well written findings not stated • Repetitive, but can be • Repetitive of data revised already covered • Findings are totally inconsistent with all available data in the literature (possibility of false data) Discussion • Unqualified • Statements, goals, and • Statements and • Statements and statements and conclusions are not linked conclusions are conclusions are conclusions are and are not clearly presented but need clearly supported by made that are not supported by data; major minor revision to data and are linked supported by the rewriting could address this correlate with data to goals data; conclusions • Some study implications and link with goals • Study clearly and goals not linked and/or limitations are • Study implications advances knowledge • Study implications missing or not clearly and/or limitations are • Study’s implications and/or limitations presented presented but are and limitations are not included • Study has the potential to missing a point(s), completely and • Relevant studies not advance knowledge if paper which can be succinctly presented mentioned is rewritten and key addressed • Doesn’t emphasize components clearly • Study advances how study advances presented knowledge knowledge or study does not advance knowledge References • Misnumbered; list • Too many or too few, but • Minor • Up to date; relevant doesn’t match text authors can address adding/trimming • Appropriate to • Too many or too few • Some refs are out of date needed in ref list, but manuscript type (see manuscript and important refs are list is current and • Correlated well with type guidelines) missing, but authors can fix appropriate to article text • Out of date via lit search; authors did type • Adheres completely • Glaring omissions make some effort to • List missing an to AMA citation (clearly, authors did research other important important article(s); style not review other articles easily addressed by important articles) • Not well correlated with text authors • Failure to adhere to • Poorly prepared re AMA • Needs minor work to AMA citation style citation style correlate list with text • Adheres to AMA citation style Tables • Duplicative/too • Too many/too few, but can • Minor revisions • Appropriate number many/too few be addressed by authors needed to correlate of tables • Unnecessary; • Some repetition of text; can data with text • Data in tables repeats material in be fixed • A table could be support/match/ text • Some data errors (lack of added/removed augment text • Unclear; data do not correlation with text) • Tables support and correlate augment text with/support text Figures • Too many/too few • Too many/too few (but • Figures are acceptable • Figures are excellent • Not cited in text could be addressed by quality and support quality • Duplicative authors) text/discussion/ • Correlate with and • Poor quality images • Correlation to/support of hypothesis support • Don’t add to text/discussion/hypothesis is • Minor revisions text/discussion/ discussion/support weak; must be strengthened needed re missing hypothesis goals • Some images are poor arrows, etc. • Add to body of • Missing arrows, etc., quality; better images must knowledge about on images; arrows be substituted topic are not cited in • Some problems with missing legends; acronyms arrows/arrows not cited in not spelled out in legends, but topic is legends important and art could be fixed Data • Major discrepancies • Discrepancies within text, • Minor rounding errors • Data match within text, abstract, abstract, tables (e.g., 100 that easily can be throughout text, tables; patients mentioned in corrected tables, abstract; suspicious/poorly abstract and 110 in text); data are clear, prepared/insufficien math errors in precise, up to date, t/outdated data addition/subtraction/divisio original offering no n/mult/equation prep; possibility of reviewer believes that errors revision; data are can be corrected similar to/repeat information from prior articles Writing style • Poor; often • Needs major rewriting to • Minor • Well written incomprehensible; improve clarity, but topic is grammar/punctuation • Succinct multiple important and worth / spelling errors • Adheres to spelling/grammar/ reconsideration • Some repetitiveness manuscript type punctuation errors; • Repetitive; doesn’t adhere that easily can be fixed format doesn’t adhere to to manuscript type format, manuscript type but could be fixed format • Difficult to follow Research • Insufficient (not • Significant number of • Minor research points • Thorough; clearly fixable) research; questions left could be addressed by presented • Hypothesis not unanswered/unresearched authors • All questions defined or answered (could be fixed) • Hypothesis defined appropriately • Hypothesis not clearly and answered but answered defined authors should consider additional points suggested by reviewers Sources: http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/reviewers/peer‐reviewers‐guidance (BMJ peer review guidelines, complete with training materials for reviewers)
http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/101/10/507 (affect of peer review training)
http://jama.ama‐assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/3/237?ijkey=806201c7d893d43fe88d1c7901a0b059eac3bcc6 (blind vs open peer review stats)
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/150/6/947?ijkey=b943aeaca2bfa783c2cdcee0a3ded084ebde3dfd (see Appendix 1)
http://jama.ama‐assn.org/cgi/content‐nw/full/287/21/2786/TABLEJOC11816T1 (table of peer review criteria)
http://jama.ama‐assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/21/2786 (more on peer review; see box)
http://jama.ama‐assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/21/2786 (JAMA article on peer review)
A Review of Process Fault Detection and Diagnosis Part I Quantitative Model-Based Methods (2003, Venkat Venkatasubramanian, Raghunathan Rengaswamy, Kewen Yin, Surya N. Kavuri)