How to review journal manuscripts

Abstract

Reviewing manuscripts is central to editorial peer review, which arose in the early 1900s in response to the editor's need for expert advice to help select quality articles from numerous submissions. Most reviewers learn by trial and error, often giving up along the way because the process is far from intuitive. This primer will help minimize errors and maximize enjoyment in reviewing. Topics covered include responding to a review invitation, crafting comments to editors and authors, offering a recommended disposition, dealing with revised manuscripts, and understanding roles and responsibilities. The target audience is primarily novice reviewers, but seasoned reviewers should also find useful pearls to assist their efforts.© 2010 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. All rights reserved.A common complaint of nearly all journal editors is the difficulty in finding competent reviewers to assess an increasing volume of submitted manuscripts. Identifying content experts is relatively easy, but finding those with expertise in both content and reviewing is quite another matter.One question considered at some point by everyone contemplating a manuscript review is, "why bother?" Reviewing takes time, and time for intellectual pursuits is a luxury that few can afford. The short answer is, "because it is the right thing to do," but in more pragmatic terms, reviewing manuscripts is enjoyable, challenging, can generate continuing medical education (CME) credits, affords a privileged insight into the frontiers of knowledge, and, importantly, develops critical thinking skills that improve research, teaching, and clinical care.Reviewing manuscripts is central to editorial peer review, which arose in the early 1900s in response to the editor's need for expert advice to help select quality articles from numerous submissions. 1 When medical journals first appeared a century earlier, the editor had overwhelming importance as writer, spokesperson, and solicitor of content. As the twentieth century progressed, however, specialization of knowledge pressured editors into incorporating the advice of experts through peer review. Specialization applied not only to subject matter, but also to methods and techniques, with expertise at times limited to only a few specific research sites.Society journals, like this one, initially resisted peer review because members of the organization assumed that the journal should print whatever was sent in or presented at meetings. Moreover, editors could not fill their pages if all manuscripts, many of mediocre quality, had to pass the filter of peer review. This is no longer a concern for Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, which receives nearly 2000 submissions annually, of which many are high quality but few are accepted for publication. Peer review today is an important extension of the scientific process, especially for society journals, because it champions expertise within the organization. Current goals of peer review are listed in Table 1. MethodsThe su...

A new tool measuring oral malodor quality of life

“…Several potential weaknesses of the study merit mentioning [16]. HALT is a new tool created de novo without any other comparative halitosis questionnaire existing.…”

Manuscript Rejection

“…In the reviewer response, be specific as to where changes were made to the manuscript, such as, “As the reviewer requested, on page 5, paragraph 2, line 6, we have included the mean age of the sample as 56.5 years.” Reviewers or editors should not be expected to be “manuscript detectives” to find all of the revisions made by the authors. 32 Authors will make everyone’s life easier by spelling out the changes the first time around. Responses should most likely include changes to the text of the manuscript rather than just addressing the reviewer in the response letter.…”

“…Of course, the reviewer comments are beneficial to authors, but reviewing can also be beneficial to the reviewer by improving critical thinking skills. 32 Although peer-review takes time and does not involve monetary compensation, it is a request that should not be taken lightly. After receiving a request to provide a review, one should first decide whether one has the time to do it.…”

Congratulations 2016

“…In addition, I strongly urge all reviewers to become familiar with and embrace the methodology highlighted by Richard Rosenfeld in his well-written paper on reviewing. 1 We also offer instruction courses and panels at the AAO-HNSF Annual Meeting and OTO EXPO both on reviewing manuscripts and on getting published. Successful and highly rated reviewers are invited to join the journal's Editorial Board, and active members of that group are often invited to become Associate Editors and assist with decisions regarding submitted manuscripts.…”