• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Technology
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
    • SUO Corner
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events

Journal Editors Offer Tips on Peer Review

by Thomas R. Collins • February 27, 2019

Are you interested in becoming a reviewer or wondering how to be a better peer reviewer? Michael Stewart, MD, MPH, editor-in-chief of The Laryngoscope, and Mark Courey, MD, associate editor, offered tips in a session held during the Triological Society Combined Sections Meeting:

  • Assess the paper in context with other published literature. Even if a paper is rigorous and done with sound methodology, it should not be published if it adds nothing new to the literature.
  • Consider whether revisions are possible or practical.
  • Determine whether the conclusions are supported by the data.
  • Assess the statistics and methodology, but ask for help from a statistician if needed.
  • Don’t be afraid to reject a submission right away, Dr. Stewart said. “If you think the authors have to re-do their data analysis or if they need more data, in my mind, that’s an automatic rejection.”
  • Look for a power analysis and be suspect of underpowered studies.
  • “Negative” studies—with no difference between groups—can be important to publish.
  • Don’t say yes and then not complete your review. If you will not be able to complete the review, please say no initially.
  • Finish your review on time.
  • Be fair—and not harsh or sarcastic.
  • Don’t violate the confidentiality of peer review.

ENTtoday - https://www.enttoday.org/article/journal-editors-offer-tips-on-peer-review/

Filed Under: Features Tagged With: peer review