Guidelines Informing the Peer Review Process

Abstract

T he peer review process is an important component of scientific publishing and is essential in assisting editors to make final decisions about whether to publish an author’s paper. Most journals today are refereed (including The Diabetes Educator), a process whereby editors send out manuscripts received for publication to outside experts for their comments on the papers’ significance and suitability. Scholarly peer review is referred to as refereeing. Referred materials are often cited as peer reviewed. While there are often no set referee qualifications or evaluation guidelines, criteria may vary widely within and among journals. Without getting into specifics regarding criteria associated with reviewing manuscripts, several basic guidelines need to be considered when providing feedback to the editor. 1. Is the manuscript readable, with one major purpose, adequate sentence structure, and logical flow of information? The manuscript must be readable, with a clear and concise problem statement. The opening paragraphs need to describe the problem and focus on what is being studied. The problem statement justifies the study by citing background information about the problem and its contributions to practice, theory, or both. At the end of the problem statement (introduction), a purpose statement is expressed as a single statement or question specifying the overall goal and intent of the research while clarifying the knowledge to be gained. 2. Is the manuscript timely, useful, and clinically applicable? Content associated with manuscripts submitted to The Diabetes Educator should preferably focus on topics that develop, refine, and/or extend knowledge in the field of diabetes care and education. As diabetes educators, we are instrumental in ensuring and providing evidence-based practice. We must always ask the questions “What is the best evidence for this treatment/intervention?” or “How do we provide best practices?” and “Are these the highest achievable outcomes for the individual with diabetes and his or her family?” These types of manuscripts are useful and clinically applicable, resulting in better patient outcomes while contributing to a unique body of knowledge. 3. Does content associated with the manuscript provide readers with new information or make a significant and novel contribution to the field? Content associated with a manuscript should provide readers with new information. Authors must effectively and informatively communicate the contribution that the new knowledge brings to an audience of diabetes educators. As a reviewer, you should ask “What is the defined contribution of this manuscript? What is its proposed value?” Be cautious that manuscripts may not provide readers with many new insights or research opportunities, often providing repetitive or redundant contributions. Again, while the above-mentioned guidelines do not cover the range of reviewer opinions, they do provide reviewers with an overview of how to comment on the significance and suitability of a paper. Editors will find comments addressing these issues helpful in judging the quality of the manuscript with authors assured of professional review under some broad guidelines.