Abstract
A hallmark of a successful, high-impact scientific professional journal is a rigorous peer-review process, which ensures that all articles published in the journal will positively advance knowledge and practice. The editorial team of the Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography (JDMS) is committed to providing our readers with excellent scientific evidence, insightful literature reviews, and novel clinical cases that will support and advance the use of sonography. The following overview provides our volunteer reviewers and other members of the scientific community with information regarding the key components of a high-quality review in the context of the JDMS peer-review process and advice for completing a manuscript review while avoiding common pitfalls. In addition to reviewers, prospective authors can use this overview to ensure that their manuscripts meet core requirements that our reviewers will be evaluating, thereby improving efficiency in the review process and increasing potential for publication in the JDMS.
Purposes of Peer Review
The peer-review process for scientific professional journals serves two distinct purposes. First, constructive comments from impartial academic, scientific, and clinical experts ensure that manuscripts are revised and edited to achieve the highest possible quality prior to publication. This direct feedback to authors should identify opportunities for improvement, such as when the writing is unclear, the methods or results are not sufficiently described, or the interpretation, discussion, or conclusions are misguided or lack depth. When appropriate, an outstanding reviewer will also suggest alternative points of view, additional published literature, or important clinical considerations that are highly relevant to a manuscript that may not have been considered by the authors. Second, a well-crafted, complete, and compelling peer-review statement is valuable to the editorial team, who must make an informed decision of whether or not to publish the manuscript. Publishing decisions are typically made relative to core principles that align with the mission of the journal or affiliated professional organization. Key among these core principles for high-impact, scientific journals is manuscript quality and methodological rigor. In addition, it is usually important for a manuscript to provide novel or innovative evidence and perspectives on a topic that is relevant to the journal’s readers.
For the peer-review process to be effective in these two ways, it is vital that reviewers provide a thorough, thoughtful, detailed, and unbiased review of the manuscript. In an effort for full transparency, some journals use an open peer-review process in which the names of the reviewers and authors are known to each other. This open process assumes that attaching names to a review will promote a more honest and meaningful review; however, some reviewers are unwilling to provide an open-review or limit their honest feedback when their name will be known to the authors. To minimize these concerns, many journals use a single-blind process, in which the reviewers’ names are kept confidential but names and affiliations of the authors are known. This single-blind process allows reviewers to gain insight into the authors’ other work, which may promote a more robust, contextualized review. The JDMS uses a double-blind review process, which means that the names of the authors and reviewers are never shared with each other during the review process, and the reviewers’ names are never revealed to anyone outside of the editorial team. The use of a double-blind process limits potential bias on the part of the reviewer, either for or against a known author, while allowing the reviewer to feel confident in providing a detailed and honest confidential review.
Completing a High-Quality Manuscript Review
To assist our volunteers in completing a thorough and insightful review, JDMS provides a framework that requires reviewers to evaluate the manuscript and give feedback across six core areas (Figure 1). First, reviewers must determine if the manuscript offers original insight and information that advances knowledge, education, or clinical practice. While large-scale, paradigm-shifting data are not required, a manuscript should provide novel insights and avoid only repeating well-known clinical or scientific evidence. Second, reviewers should evaluate the overall rigor and quality of the writing, methods, and images, tables, or figures included in the manuscript. A positive appraisal relies heavily on the inclusion of sufficient detail provided in a clear manner throughout the manuscript. When communicated effectively, a reviewer will be able to easily understand what has been completed, feel confident that the information provided is valid, and could easily replicate the study to arrive at similar conclusions. The final component of the review is focused on the implications and conclusions that have been drawn. Common issues for a reviewer to consider include (1) whether the conclusions are accurate and supported by the information presented in the manuscript, (2) that the implications are proportional to the scale and scope of the manuscript and are not overstated in importance or impact, and (3) that all findings, implications, and conclusions have been adequately discussed within the broader context of current knowledge and practice.
Key components required in the peer-review process by the Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography.
After reading through the manuscript and evaluating each core component, reviewers should construct a concise summary to be provided to the authors that covers the major strengths and concerns as well as provides direct recommendations for improving the manuscript. A recommended structure for a thorough and constructive review summary is provided in Figure 2. It is important that this summary provide clear and specific feedback so that the authors are able to respond to and address each individual concern that is raised. When this feedback is too brief, generic, and nonspecific, authors are unable to determine how to update the manuscript to address concerns, and the review is not useful to the editorial team in deciding on the manuscript.
Recommended structure for the written review summary of comments to authors.
Once the summary has been completed, the reviewer is asked to make a general recommendation regarding acceptance of the manuscript for publication. Decision categories vary across journals, but the JDMS asks reviewers to select from four options: (1) Accept, excellent manuscript with only minor copy edits required; (2) Minor Revision, meets most criteria with minimal content updates needed; (3) Major Revision, has value but needs significant edits to meet criteria; (4) Reject, does not meet criteria and likely not able to meet criteria with edits. It is important to note that a reviewer should avoid making any specific comments related to this recommendation within the direct feedback to the author. Any comments regarding the final recommendation, questions, or other concerns that the reviewer has regarding the manuscript or review process should be given in the area provided for confidential comments to the editorial team.
The JDMS is committed to improving reviewer quality through various feedback methods. First, when a decision is reached on a manuscript, each reviewer will receive an email that contains the editor’s decision and all of the feedback provided by the editorial team and individual reviewers. Reviewers are encouraged to read through the feedback provided by their colleagues as a means for improving their own reviewing skill. Second, upon receiving all reviews for a manuscript, the JDMS editorial team completes an assessment of each reviewer’s comments. Primary components of this assessment include the thoroughness and constructive nature of the feedback, the appropriateness of the tone and communication style, and how useful the review was in making a final decision on the manuscript. Individual reviewer feedback for each review that is provided is aggregated and provided to the reviewer at the end of each year.
Tips for a Successful Review
Dedicate Adequate Time
Completing a manuscript review takes time and mental energy; a thorough review and summary will often take at least 2 to 3 hours to complete. When agreeing to complete a manuscript review, be sure to look ahead on your schedule to determine if you will be able to dedicate a focused block of time within the time frame required by the journal. When you are not sure you will have time within the review period to complete the review, it is usually better to decline the review than to agree to complete the review and not be able to meet the deadline. When a reviewer is unable to return a review by the deadline, the editorial team has to begin the process of inviting another reviewer, which can delay returning a decision to the authors.
Leverage Your Expertise, but Acknowledge Limitations
The editorial team for any journal is able to recruit only from the available pool of reviewers, which means that there may not always be available reviewers with perfectly matched expertise. As such, it is possible that you could be asked to review manuscripts on topics that are somewhat outside of your clinical experience or research manuscripts even if you have no previous research experience. Realize that you were invited to review a manuscript because you have a unique perspective that the editorial team is interested to hear. No matter your level of expertise on the topic or method, you are an eventual consumer of the manuscript and therefore have a valued opinion. If you are reviewing a manuscript that has content on which you are unable to provide comment (e.g., complex statistical analysis), provide as many comments on the content as you can and provide comments to the editorial team regarding the areas you were not comfortable reviewing. Oftentimes, the editorial team will select reviewers who have complementary expertise, knowing that one reviewer is a content expert and the second reviewer is a research methodologist. If you do not feel comfortable completing a review, even if it is after you have accepted the review, there is no shame in contacting the editorial team with a request to have the review reassigned. The worst thing you can do is not respond at all, leading to delays in the review process.
Avoid Copy Editing
As tempting as it can be to identify and correct every grammatical error in a manuscript, the editorial team will always be more interested in receiving feedback on the core criteria—grammar can always be fixed in the editing process, but other issues may not be fixable. Instead of focusing on individual grammatical corrections, evaluate and comment on writing quality. Feedback can be provided as to specific types of grammatical issues (e.g., verb tense, appropriate use of articles) and concerns with the organization or flow of the manuscript, as each relates to the overall readability and ease of comprehension for the reader.
Be Specific, but Reasonable
When providing comments and suggestions, it is often useful to give specific recommendations for how the manuscript may be improved. For major concerns or issues that arise in multiple places throughout the manuscript, one or two general recommendations could be made as an example. For minor or moderate concerns, it may be useful to give recommendations specific to each comment. Be sure that your recommendations are reasonable within the context of the study. One prime example is to remember that work has typically been completed prior to the manuscript submission; therefore, it is likely not reasonable to recommend collecting additional data to resolve concerns related to small sample size. In the situation of a small sample size, recommendations should be to ensure that the limitation is noted within the discussion and that the interpretation is not overreaching or out of scope. Other suggestions for a small sample may be to revise the analytic plan or methods to a more appropriate design (e.g., case series).
Review the Manuscript, Not the Authors
Above all other things, remember that the manuscript was submitted by a fellow human being who dedicated a significant amount of time and effort to get to the point of submitting a manuscript. Write your review using a professional, supportive, and constructive tone that avoids aggressive, inflammatory, or dismissive language. It is generally good practice to avoid addressing comments directly to the authors; instead, it may be better to assign comments to the manuscript. For example, “the authors used an inappropriate statistical analysis for the study design” could be stated in a less aggressive manner as, “the statistical analysis reported in the manuscript is not appropriate for the study design.”
Before You Submit, Become the Author
After you have completed your review, it can be useful to read through the full review as if you were the author. Consider whether you have provided enough information that, as the author, you would know how to edit the manuscript in response to the comments. Provide additional information for any comments in which a method for resolving the concern is not clear. Look for any statements that come across as aggressive or make you feel uncomfortable; these statements may need to be revised to be less personal and more constructive. After reading the entire review, decide if it would be clear to you as the author why the recommendation to accept, revise, or reject was made. If the total review does not match the recommendation, take time to consider why you made the recommendation and either edit your review or update the recommendation. Once you feel confident in your review, submit it to the editorial team and cross it off your to-do list!