How to Review a Surgical Scientific Paper: A Guide for Critical Appraisal

Overview

Journal Ann Surg Open

Publisher Wolters Kluwer

Specialty General Surgery

Date 2023 Aug 28

PMID 37638253

Authors

Stephanie H Greco

Catherine H Davis

Caitlin W Hicks

Alison E Kaye

Jessica E Maxwell

Arghavan Salles

Marion C W Henry

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

It is important for surgeons to participate in the peer-review process of scientific literature. As the number of published manuscripts continues to increase, there is a great need for volunteerism in this arena. However, there is little formal or informal training, which can help surgeons provide unbiased and meaningful reviews. Therefore, it is critical to provide more resources and guidelines to aid surgeons during the review process. The purpose of this paper is to provide a structured guide for a quality review of a surgical paper. This review represents the work of the Association of Women Surgeons Publications Committee.

Citing Articles

The art of peer review: Guidelines to become a credible and constructive peer reviewer.

Weaver M, Sundland R, Adams A, Faria I, Feldman H, Gudmundsdottir H Semin Vasc Surg. 2022; 35(4):470-478.

PMID: 36414364 PMC: 9833278. DOI: 10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2022.10.002.

References

McFadden D, LeMaire S, Sarr M, Behrns K . How to review a paper: suggestions from the editors of Surgery and the Journal of Surgical Research. J Surg Res. 2017; 215:264-268. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.05.007. View

Tandon R . How to review a scientific paper. Asian J Psychiatr. 2014; 11:124-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajp.2014.08.007. View

von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M, Pocock S, Gotzsche P, Vandenbroucke J . The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007; 370(9596):1453-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X. View

Riordan L . Enhancing your manuscript with graphic elements, part 1: tables. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2013; 113(1):54-7. View

Riordan L . Enhancing your manuscript with graphic elements, part 2: figures. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2013; 113(5):424-31. View

Soreide K, Winter D . Global survey of factors influencing choice of surgical journal for manuscript submission. Surgery. 2009; 147(4):475-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.10.042. View

Collins S, Gemayel R, Chenette E . Avoiding common pitfalls of manuscript and figure preparation. FEBS J. 2017; 284(9):1262-1266. DOI: 10.1111/febs.14020. View

Resnik D, Elmore S . Conflict of Interest in Journal Peer Review. Toxicol Pathol. 2018; 46(2):112-114. PMC: 5825276. DOI: 10.1177/0192623318754792. View

Smith R . Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006; 99(4):178-82. PMC: 1420798. DOI: 10.1177/014107680609900414. View

10.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010; 8(5):336-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007. View

11.

Allen T . Peer review guidance: how do you write a good review?. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2013; 113(12):916-20. DOI: 10.7556/jaoa.2013.070. View

12.

Hill J . How to Review a Manuscript. J Electrocardiol. 2016; 49(2):109-11. PMC: 4775410. DOI: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2016.01.001. View

13.

Stahel P, Moore E . How to review a surgical paper: a guide for junior referees. BMC Med. 2016; 14:29. PMC: 4753042. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0578-6. View

14.

Gasparyan A . Choosing the target journal: do authors need a comprehensive approach?. J Korean Med Sci. 2013; 28(8):1117-9. PMC: 3744695. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2013.28.8.1117. View

15.

Torgerson D, Adamson J, Cockayne S, Dumville J, Petherick E . Submission to multiple journals: a method of reducing time to publication?. BMJ. 2005; 330(7486):305-7. PMC: 548187. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.330.7486.305. View

16.

Thompson P . How to choose the right journal for your manuscript. Chest. 2007; 132(3):1073-6. DOI: 10.1378/chest.07-1340. View

17.

Schulz K, Altman D, Moher D . CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010; 152(11):726-32. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232. View

18.

Davis C, Bass B, Behrns K, Lillemoe K, Garden O, Roh M . Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018; 3:4. PMC: 5964882. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-018-0048-0. View