Below is a guide to follow when reviewing a clincial manuscript.
The basic tenets of peer review apply to all types of manuscripts, even those with a professional or practitioner target audience.
Skim the manuscript to get a general understanding of its content, objectives, and conclusions. Consider what the authors want to communicate – can you comprehend the main aims and conclusions of the study? Pay attention to the phrasing, language, and the overall presentation.
Check the following: the novelty and innovation of the research in terms of its methodology or conclusions; how the overall methods and approaches compare to the standards of your field; and whether the conclusions align with the analysis and result.
A clinically focused manuscript should provide up-to-date research that aids in making informed clinical decisions. As you read, check whether the author(s) address a clinical problem, rather than just a research question , and assess whether the tone is straightforward and speaks to clinicians. It is important to gauge the potential impact of the research on its intended audience.
Check if the manuscript cites recent, relevant studies and includes useful diagrams or tables for clinical practice. Finally, evaluate whether the discussion effectively translates findings into new insights or improvements in clinical problems and therapies.
Clinical practitioners are busy, and the research they read must be clearly organized and easy to understand. When reviewing the manuscript, consider how appealing it is. Do you find it easy to identify the key points? Is it clear what areas are less important and can be skimmed by a busy practitioner? Is the manuscript’s structure consistent with the journal’s standards?
The manuscript you are reading should emphasize its potential impact on practice. A strong manuscript includes details on how the research or intervention could be implemented. An even stronger manuscript also incorporates clinically applicable screening tools and patient- or consumer-friendly education sources.
For case studies, ensure that only essential information is presented. Case studies can be a useful way to introduce materials, but clinicians do not always have time to read a full case study. Check that key details are presented: is the diagnosis correct? Was treatment appropriate for the diagnosis? If additional information has been included in figure or table format (e.g., laboratory values, chronology of key events, photographs), is it clear and relevant? Are the treatment and outcomes clearly described, and are the conclusions reasonable and not attempting to generalize to a wider population?
If the case study involves a real patient, the patient and their family should not be identifiable. If the manuscript does not clearly state if the patient is real, your review should request clarification.
Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest (COI) in their manuscripts. A COI could arise if an author is paid by a commercial entity to write the article, conduct research, or compile the review. If a third party writes an article that is submitted by another individual (sometimes referred to as “ghostwriting”), this must also be stated.
Even if a true conflict does not exist, reviewers should be given all the disclosure information. If you feel that something is missing, notify the editor and mention it in your review.
Further, if you feel that you have a potential conflict of interest with the manuscript, notify the editor immediately.
All research must conform to ethical standards that protect both human participants and experimental animals. The authors must include a statement to this effect in the manuscript, even if the research was exempted from informed consent procedures by the institution. If this statement is missing, notify the editor, as some journals will not accept research without this statement.
Since clinical trials involve testing of new drugs, therapies, and devices for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, it is important to ensure that they adhere to highest standards of ethical medical practices. A reviewer must examine how the participants were recruited, whether ethical and consent procedures were correctly followed, and if participants’ well-being was ensured.
Methods used in clinical trials must be free from potential confounding factors. Randomization should be done correctly, and appropriate statistical analysis should be used. Contradictory findings and limitations of the data should also be acknowledged. The reviewer should assess whether the paper conforms to the relevant EQUATOR network guidance and verify if the study was registered in a WHO-approved registry prior to the participant enrollment.
Looking to become an effective peer review? Take our free course on Wiley Researcher Academy.