Peer Review

Systematic framework for conducting rigorous peer review of scientific manuscripts and content.

Triggers

• User asks to review a draft or manuscript
• User wants feedback on scientific content
• User needs quality assessment of an article
• User is preparing content for publication
• User wants pre-submission review

Review Stages

Stage 1: Initial Assessment

High-Level Questions:

• Is the scope appropriate for the target venue?
• Is the work novel and significant?
• Are methods fundamentally sound?
• Is the writing quality acceptable?

Decision Points:

• Accept for detailed review
• Reject (fundamental flaws)
• Suggest alternative venue

Stage 2: Section-by-Section Review

Abstract

• Accurately reflects content
• Includes key findings with numbers
• States conclusions supported by data
• Within word limit
• Structured appropriately (if required)

Introduction

• Clear statement of problem/gap
• Adequate background context
• Logical flow to research question
• Objectives clearly stated
• Appropriate scope of literature cited

Methods

• Study design appropriate for question
• Population/sample clearly defined
• Interventions/exposures described
• Outcomes defined and measured appropriately
• Statistical analysis plan adequate
• Ethical approvals mentioned
• Reproducible detail provided

Results

• Presented in logical order
• All methods have corresponding results
• Appropriate statistics reported
• Tables/figures clear and necessary
• No interpretation (just findings)

Discussion

• Key findings summarized
• Results interpreted in context
• Comparison with existing literature
• Limitations acknowledged honestly
• Implications stated appropriately
• Conclusions supported by data

References

• Adequate coverage of field
• Recent and relevant citations
• Proper formatting
• No excessive self-citation

Stage 3: Methodological Rigor

For Clinical Studies:

• CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA followed
• Randomization appropriate (if RCT)
• Blinding adequate
• Sample size justified
• ITT analysis used
• Missing data handled

Statistical Assessment:

• Tests appropriate for data
• Assumptions verified
• Effect sizes with CIs reported
• Multiple testing addressed
• P-values interpreted correctly

Stage 4: Reproducibility Check

• Data availability stated
• Code/analysis scripts available
• Materials sufficiently described
• Protocol registered (if applicable)
• Reporting guidelines followed

Stage 5: Figure/Table Review

• Necessary (not duplicating text)
• Clear and interpretable
• Properly labeled
• Legends complete
• Quality adequate for publication
• No data integrity concerns

Stage 6: Ethics & Integrity

• Appropriate ethics approval
• Informed consent obtained
• Conflicts of interest disclosed
• Funding sources declared
• No plagiarism concerns
• Data appear genuine

Stage 7: Writing Quality

• Clear and concise
• Logical organization
• Appropriate terminology
• Grammar and spelling correct
• Accessible to target audience

Review Report Structure

Summary Statement (1-2 paragraphs)

• Brief description of study
• Main strengths
• Main weaknesses
• Overall recommendation

Major Comments

Critical issues that must be addressed:

• Methodological flaws
• Unsupported conclusions
• Missing essential information
• Statistical errors

Minor Comments

Improvements for clarity/completeness:

• Presentation issues
• Additional analyses suggested
• Clarifications needed
• Minor errors

Questions for Authors

Specific clarifications required:

• Ambiguous methods
• Unclear results
• Missing details

Recommendation Categories

Recommendation	Meaning
Accept	Ready for publication
Minor revision	Small changes, no re-review
Major revision	Significant changes, re-review needed
Reject and resubmit	Fundamental issues, new submission
Reject	Not suitable, not salvageable

Discipline-Specific Guidelines

Cardiology/Medical

• Check CONSORT for trials
• Verify endpoint definitions match guidelines
• Assess clinical vs statistical significance
• Review NNT/NNH calculations
• Check for appropriate comparators

Constructive Feedback Principles

1. Be specific - Cite line numbers, quote text
2. Be constructive - Suggest solutions, not just problems
3. Be proportionate - Major issues get major attention
4. Be consistent - Apply same standards throughout
5. Be respectful - Critique work, not authors
6. Be balanced - Acknowledge strengths too