Peer review has been the principal way of evaluating scientific articles, ensuring that publications meet standards of methodology, integrity, and ethics. Occasionally, however, reviews are suboptimal, especially those by inexperienced reviewers. Therefore, this article offers suggestions on how to review a scientific article. Some of the most important suggestions include submitting the review in a timely fashion without undue delay, not breeching confidentiality, focusing mainly on the methodology, following specific format, and avoiding embarrassing comments to the authors.
SmithR.Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:178-182.
2.
ProvenzaleJMStanleyRJ.A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185:848-854.
3.
HamesI.Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist. Sci Ed. 2016;3:36-42.
4.
SpigtMArtsIC.How to review a manuscript. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1385-1390.
5.
BlockeelCDrakopoulosPPolyzosNTournayeHGarcνa-VelascoJA. Review the “peer review.”Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35:747-749.
6.
BainBJLittlewoodTJSzydlRM.The finer points of writing and refereeing scientific articles. Br J Haematol. 2016;172:350-359.
7.
HuangXLinJDemner-FushmanD. Evaluation of PICO as a knowledge representation for clinical questiosns. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006:359-363.
8.
SealsDRTanakaH.Manuscript peer review, a helpful checklist for students and novice referees. Adv Physiol Educ. 2000;23:52-58.
9.
SchulzKFAltmanDGMoherD; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010; 152:726-732.
10.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264-269.
11.
DerraikJGBButlerÉMRerkasemK. Publishing without perishing: a guide to the successful reporting of clinical data. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2019;18:219-227.
12.
LazaridesMKGougoudi, PapanasN.Pitfalls and misconducts in medical writing. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2019;18:350-355.
13.
ResnikDBGutierrez-FordCPeddadaS.Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: an exploratory study. Sci Eng Ethics. 2008;14:305-310.
14.
AnnesleyTM.Seven reasons not to be a reviewer—and why these reasons are wrong. Clin Chem. 2012;58:677-679.
15.
PapanasNGeorgiadisGSDemetriouMLazaridesMKMaltezosE.Creating a successful poster: “beauty is truth, truth beauty.”Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2019;18:6-9.
