Serving as a reviewer

Abstract

There is broad agreement that peer review remains Submitted to Biomedical Journals” adopted by an international committee of medical journal editors in 1988 the best method of assessing scientific manuscripts. Many readers of and contributors to Kidney International as that have subsequently been revised and expanded [2–4], and now most journals provide a web site with detailed well as all other biomedical journals may be asked by the editors to serve as reviewers of manuscripts that have instructions for authors. Some journals require that the been submitted for publication. Serving as a reviewer is a abstract contain sections presenting the background, vital effort in the advancement of biomedical knowledge. methods, results and conclusions of the study, while othReviewing is equivalent in importance to planning, comers require only a summary paragraph. The body of the pleting and reporting original research, and demands the manuscript then provides, sequentially, the background same high standards of honesty and care. and rationale for the research, the subjects of the study, It has been said that reviewing requires idealism bethe study design, the methods including the statistical cause the time and skill devoted to the effort does not, analyses if needed, the results including tables of data generally, provide a monetary reward or academic recogand graphics, a discussion, sources of support, acknowlnition [1]. Nevertheless, the request to serve as a reedgments and references. Some journals also require a viewer implies recognition by the editors of the selected statement regarding the contribution of each author to reviewer as a competent, careful and critical biomedical the planning of the study, the performance of the study scientist. Additionally, many journals annually recognize and the writing of the report. their reviewers by publication of a list of the names of Authors need to utilize care and judgment in deciding the individuals who have served as reviewers during the whether to present data in tables, graphs, other types of preceding year. Some reviewers are further recognized figures or text. An unnecessary graph or figure may utiby appointment to the editorial boards of journals. lize excessive space, but a well-prepared graph may effecThe reviewer is obligated both to the editors retively save space. When graphs are used, authors should questing the review and, even more significantly, to the take care to assure that lettering, symbols and lines within authors of the manuscript. This overview considers some graphs of data are sufficiently large and distinct to remain aspects of the review process that may provide assistance. clearly legible when necessarily reduced in size in order to meet columnor page-width limitations when printed. The manuscript should be carefully checked to assure THE AUTHOR(S) appropriate grammatical usage and spelling. If the auThe review process begins with the authors’ preparathors are not fluent in the language in which the manution of the report of the research. The review and publiscript is written, they should have the manuscript read cation even of significant new data that have broad bioand appropriately edited for correct usage by someone medical importance may be needlessly delayed if a who is fluent. Even if authors are writing in their native manuscript is poorly written. Authors should make cerlanguage, it is generally helpful to have one or more tain that they precisely comply with the requirements of colleagues read the manuscript before submission to asthe journal to which their manuscript is submitted with sure clear communication [5]. If the manuscript necessarrespect to the style of the manuscript. Many journal ily refers to another report by the authors that has been adhere to the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts accepted for publication but has not yet appeared, the authors must enclose a copy of the typescript of that report with the manuscript as reviewers should or will