The reputation Annals of Medical and Surgical Practice for excellence depends upon the professionalism of its volunteer reviewers. As a multidisciplinary journal, it invites reviewers from a variety of disciplines to ensure that the manuscripts meet high quality standards appropriate to the scholarly disciplines the manuscripts represent.
The article should be reviewed using the track changes option on Microsoft word. In addition, comments should be made on the various sections of the article. The reviewer should state his or her opinion if the article should be rejected, modified along review lines and resubmitted or if it should be rejected. This final decision should only be made to the editor, and not to the author.
The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer
The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their area of specialty, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.
Before Reviewing, ensure that
- The article you are being asked to review is in your area of expertise. If you are uncertain about some aspects of a manuscript, or think certain aspects of a manuscript are outside your expertise, please let the editor know.
- You have time to review the paper. The time given to review an article is 2 weeks.
- There are no potential conflicts of interest.
If any of these requirements is not met, please do not hesitate to contact the editor.
- Review the "Instructions for Authors/Contributors" document (in the journal website) to remind yourself of journal requirements and scope.
When reviewing the article, the following points should be taken into consideration:
- Content Quality and Originality,
Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards? Is the research question an important one?
- Organization and Clarity
- Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
- Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article? Can the abstract stand alone as an adequate summary?
- Introduction: Does the introduction clearly summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors' have reported? Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated?
- Method: Does the author accurately explain how the process of data collection? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for the research to be replicated? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? Are the methods explained in detail? Is the sampling technique and sample size appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Has the author precisely described the various measurements used?
- Results: Are the findings of the study presented in a logical sequence? Has the appropriate analysis has been conducted? Are the statistics correct?
- Discussion: Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the discussion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
- Conclusion: Are the claims in the conclusion supported by the results?
- Recommendation: Do the recommendations arise from the results of this study and are they reasonable?
- Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?
- Scope - Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?
Furthermore, the reviewer should note that
- All submissions are confidential and you should not discuss any aspect of the submissions with a third party. You should not make use of any information in the article, without first contacting the editor, who will then discuss the request with the author.
- Do not identify yourselfor your institution in your comments for the authors.
- If you would like to discuss the article with a colleague, please ask the editor first.
- The details of the authors are not provided, but do not contact the author directly if by chance, you know the author.
- Ethical Issues: Plagiarism, fraud or other concerns should be reported to the editor.
Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible. We do check accepted papers against a database of published articles, but if you notice plagiarism or other breaches of ethics during your review, kindly notify the editor.
Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor
Other ethical concerns: For medical research, has confidentiality been maintained? Has there been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of animal or human subjects? If so, then these should also be reported to the editor
- Pleasenumber each comment. This makes it much easier for editors and authors to discuss specific concerns and issues in a manuscript.
- Please cite page numbers when referring to specific sections of the manuscript.
- All comments should be about the paper, not the author. Scrutinize the issues, ideas and methods, not the author.
- Even if you think a manuscript is seriously flawed, try to give the author suggestions as to how it might be improved. Also be sure to identify the strengths of a paper, and consider whether and how those strengths might be salvaged.
- Authors will receive an anonymous copy of your comments. Always be polite, scholarly, detailed, and constructive. Do not use offensive exclamations or language.