How to Review a Clinical Research Paper.

Abstract

Peer review is an essential component of the scientific process. It is imperfect, to be sure, but there is widespread agreement that it is the best way to ensure that reliable scientific information is published.1–4 Being a reviewer is only 1 component of the process of publication. If you are an author or want to be an author, you have a duty to take part in reviewing your colleagues’ papers, just as your colleagues have reviewed your papers. Reviewing papers is a helpful part of learning the technical art of medical writing because you see and learn by example, both good and bad. Although it is a volunteer duty, there is a skill in providing a useful review and mentorship and experience matter in how you provide your review. Herein, I provide some steps on how to review papers for Stroke , specifically focussing on clinical papers. At many journals, including Stroke , there are a group of associate editors who handle papers through the review and publication process. These people are typically your senior peers and are also volunteers. Your job and duty as a reviewer is that you are advisory to them. The associate editors look at each paper as it comes in, and they may reject a paper outright or provide comments back to the author group for revision even before a paper is sent for peer review. In sending a paper to you as a reviewer, the associate editors seek your advice on quality, content, and context. Comments that you make to the editors directly are confidential and often helpful to them to interpret the context of a given paper. Read the title and abstract of the paper and decide whether you have the relevant expertise and interest to provide a review. If …