What are the steps in peer review (Peer Review) cases?

Steps in the Peer Review Process

The peer review process follows a structured approach with specific steps designed to ensure scientific rigor, validity, and quality of manuscripts or grant proposals. 1

Initial Screening and Preparation

1. Pre-Review Assessment

   • Determine if you have the time to commit (2-3 hours for thorough review) 1
   • Assess if you are qualified to review the topic 1
   • Check for conflicts of interest (institutional, financial, professional, or personal) 1
   • Commit to maintaining confidentiality 1

2. Initial Evaluation

   • Editors may perform early screening to determine if manuscripts warrant full peer review 2
   • This screening can significantly reduce time to decision (18 days vs 48 days) and reviewer burden 2

Conducting the Review

1. Comprehensive Analysis

   • Provide a brief summary of the manuscript in your own words 1
   • Assess novelty - "Is it new?" 1
   • Evaluate methodology - "Is it true?" 1
   • Determine importance - "Does anybody care?" 1

2. Structured Feedback

   • Include both strengths and areas for improvement 3
   • Provide critical analysis of the manuscript 3
   • Speak to the manuscript's utility in the literature 3
   • Number your comments for clarity 1

3. Detailed Examination

   • Review figures, tables, and their legends 1
   • Check if tables provide added value and are clear 1
   • Examine references for appropriate selection 1
   • Assess overall presentation and clarity 1

Submitting the Review

1. Comments to Authors

   • Keep reviews concise (typically ≤1 single-spaced page) 1
   • Be constructive and respectful, never rude or mean 1
   • Do not state in comments to authors whether the manuscript merits publication 1
   • Review your comments before submission to ensure clarity 1

2. Comments to Editors

   • Provide honest impression in unvarnished sentences 1
   • Make a clear recommendation: minor revisions, major revisions, de novo submission, or reject 1
   • Share thoughts on priority and importance to the field 1
   • These comments should be consistent with but different from author comments 1

Post-Review Process

1. Editorial Decision

   • Editors collate reviewer feedback 1
   • Decision letters are sent to authors 1
   • Authors revise manuscripts according to feedback 4

2. Manuscript Revision and Re-review

   • Authors address reviewer concerns 4
   • Revised manuscripts may undergo additional review 1
   • Final decisions are made by editorial team 1

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

• Bias in reviewer selection: Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts 30-42% more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers 5
• Excessive criticism: Focus on constructive feedback rather than trying to "fix" every aspect of a poor manuscript 1
• Lack of specificity: Vague comments are not helpful; provide clear, actionable feedback 3
• Delayed reviews: Submit reviews on time (usually ≤2 weeks) to avoid slowing the publication process 1

Best Practices for Effective Peer Review

• Allocate dedicated time for peer review activities 1
• Select manuscripts that align with your expertise and interests 1
• Focus on a few journals to build relationships with editors 1
• Develop critical analysis skills through training and experience 3
• Balance critique with constructive suggestions 4
• Remember the goal is to improve scientific communication, not just find flaws 6

Peer review remains the gold standard for scientific publication despite its limitations, serving as a cornerstone for ensuring quality and advancing knowledge in medical and scientific fields 4, 6.