Statistical Reviewing for Headache

Abstract

The process of reviewing the statistical analyses in a manuscript is a daunting one. There is an everchanging list of statistical tests, procedures, and best practices.The available statistical software to conduct analyses is similarly changing and many reviewers are probably finding it more and more difficult to interpret the presented data in a manuscript. Perhaps it is no wonder, then, that reviewers often neglect to comment on the statistical analyses of a manuscript, or provide comments that do not serve to improve the scientific product.The difficulties in statistical reviewing have been well documented, 1 but a looming question remains:What can our research community do about improving the statistical aspects of peer review? Examination of publication practices reveal that changes in the behavior of reviewers can be difficult to initiate and maintain. Nevertheless, efforts at enhancing statistical peer review must be made if we are to see improvements in this important reviewing issue. The editorial staff of Headache has developed a new set of reviewer guidelines to assist reviewers in formulating constructive criticisms of submitted manuscripts.These guidelines also can provide a valuable resource for authors as they work to prepare manuscripts for submission. The purpose of this editorial is to introduce a statistical reviewing checklist that is embedded within these guidelines. The statistical checklist is intended to serve as an initial step in assisting reviewers for Headache to formulate basic criticisms of the statistical reporting and design of submitted manuscripts.