Peer Review

# Peer Review

Systematic framework for conducting rigorous peer review of scientific manuscripts and content.

## Triggers

- User asks to review a draft or manuscript
- User wants feedback on scientific content
- User needs quality assessment of an article
- User is preparing content for publication
- User wants pre-submission review

## Review Stages

### Stage 1: Initial Assessment

**High-Level Questions**:
- Is the scope appropriate for the target venue?
- Is the work novel and significant?
- Are methods fundamentally sound?
- Is the writing quality acceptable?

**Decision Points**:
- Accept for detailed review
- Reject (fundamental flaws)
- Suggest alternative venue

### Stage 2: Section-by-Section Review

#### Abstract
- [ ] Accurately reflects content
- [ ] Includes key findings with numbers
- [ ] States conclusions supported by data
- [ ] Within word limit
- [ ] Structured appropriately (if required)

#### Introduction
- [ ] Clear statement of problem/gap
- [ ] Adequate background context
- [ ] Logical flow to research question
- [ ] Objectives clearly stated
- [ ] Appropriate scope of literature cited

#### Methods
- [ ] Study design appropriate for question
- [ ] Population/sample clearly defined
- [ ] Interventions/exposures described
- [ ] Outcomes defined and measured appropriately
- [ ] Statistical analysis plan adequate
- [ ] Ethical approvals mentioned
- [ ] Reproducible detail provided

#### Results
- [ ] Presented in logical order
- [ ] All methods have corresponding results
- [ ] Appropriate statistics reported
- [ ] Tables/figures clear and necessary
- [ ] No interpretation (just findings)

#### Discussion
- [ ] Key findings summarized
- [ ] Results interpreted in context
- [ ] Comparison with existing literature
- [ ] Limitations acknowledged honestly
- [ ] Implications stated appropriately
- [ ] Conclusions supported by data

#### References
- [ ] Adequate coverage of field
- [ ] Recent and relevant citations
- [ ] Proper formatting
- [ ] No excessive self-citation

### Stage 3: Methodological Rigor

**For Clinical Studies**:
- [ ] CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA followed
- [ ] Randomization appropriate (if RCT)
- [ ] Blinding adequate
- [ ] Sample size justified
- [ ] ITT analysis used
- [ ] Missing data handled

**Statistical Assessment**:
- [ ] Tests appropriate for data
- [ ] Assumptions verified
- [ ] Effect sizes with CIs reported
- [ ] Multiple testing addressed
- [ ] P-values interpreted correctly

### Stage 4: Reproducibility Check

- [ ] Data availability stated
- [ ] Code/analysis scripts available
- [ ] Materials sufficiently described
- [ ] Protocol registered (if applicable)
- [ ] Reporting guidelines followed

### Stage 5: Figure/Table Review

- [ ] Necessary (not duplicating text)
- [ ] Clear and interpretable
- [ ] Properly labeled
- [ ] Legends complete
- [ ] Quality adequate for publication
- [ ] No data integrity concerns

### Stage 6: Ethics & Integrity

- [ ] Appropriate ethics approval
- [ ] Informed consent obtained
- [ ] Conflicts of interest disclosed
- [ ] Funding sources declared
- [ ] No plagiarism concerns
- [ ] Data appear genuine

### Stage 7: Writing Quality

- [ ] Clear and concise
- [ ] Logical organization
- [ ] Appropriate terminology
- [ ] Grammar and spelling correct
- [ ] Accessible to target audience

## Review Report Structure

### Summary Statement (1-2 paragraphs)
- Brief description of study
- Main strengths
- Main weaknesses
- Overall recommendation

### Major Comments
Critical issues that must be addressed:
- Methodological flaws
- Unsupported conclusions
- Missing essential information
- Statistical errors

### Minor Comments
Improvements for clarity/completeness:
- Presentation issues
- Additional analyses suggested
- Clarifications needed
- Minor errors

### Questions for Authors
Specific clarifications required:
- Ambiguous methods
- Unclear results
- Missing details

## Recommendation Categories

| Recommendation | Meaning |
|----------------|---------|
| Accept | Ready for publication |
| Minor revision | Small changes, no re-review |
| Major revision | Significant changes, re-review needed |
| Reject and resubmit | Fundamental issues, new submission |
| Reject | Not suitable, not salvageable |

## Discipline-Specific Guidelines

### Cardiology/Medical
- Check CONSORT for trials
- Verify endpoint definitions match guidelines
- Assess clinical vs statistical significance
- Review NNT/NNH calculations
- Check for appropriate comparators

### Constructive Feedback Principles

1. **Be specific** - Cite line numbers, quote text
2. **Be constructive** - Suggest solutions, not just problems
3. **Be proportionate** - Major issues get major attention
4. **Be consistent** - Apply same standards throughout
5. **Be respectful** - Critique work, not authors
6. **Be balanced** - Acknowledge strengths too