Abstract
To determine the disparities and the priorities of basic health scientists and clinicians while assessing a manuscript. Cross-sectional study. The study was conducted at Karachi, from January to April 2014. The study was a proforma-based research, employed convenient sampling for data collection, in which 100 reviewers belonging to clinical and basic health science background were selected. The questionnaire used was a selfadministered one with close-ended questions. The results were analysed using SPSS software. Out of 100 respondents, 50 were from Basic Health Sciences Reviewers (BRs) and 50 Clinicians Reviewers (CRs). The results depicted grammatical and improper referencing amongst formatting mistakes as the most common observation by the reviewers. The reviewers also raised concerns regarding validity of statistical analysis, use of outdated references and lack of acknowledgment of the sources of funding utilised by the authors. There were elements of manuscripts that BRs and CRs reviewers agreed upon and prioritised, but there were elements of the manuscript that they approached mostly in methods, results and conclusion components. The priorities of reviewers from Basic Health Sciences and Clinical background differed markedly in certain respects. This impacts how they review the manuscripts.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
