CJEM Policies and Procedures

  1. The peer review package
    1. A primer on peer review
    2. Manuscript review form
    3. Review comments to author
    4. Checklist for evaluating scientific articles
    5. Reviewing articles for the Humour and Humanity section
  2. CJEM Policy on Article Rejection Appeals
  3. CJEM Policy on Reporting of Editors' Relationships With Industry
  4. CJEM Policy on Reporting of Authors' Relationships With Industry
  5. Criteria for Authorship
  6. CJEM Manuscript Processing

The Peer Review Package

Peer Review Package: A primer on peer review

Peer review is the evaluation of an article by expert peers. The primary goal of peer review is to help the author improve the quality of the manuscript. The secondary goal of peer review is to identify flaws and determine whether the article is worthy of publication. The peer reviewer's job is to advise the editor whether the manuscript should be published. The average time necessary to perform a review is 2.5 hours. In general, the reviewer should consider whether the article is important, whether it improves the reader's understanding of the issue, and whether it is appropriate for the journal's audience. If the manuscript describes a study or trial, the reviewer should consider whether it was well designed and performed.

Specific points to address in the review:

  • Is the article of interest to emergency physicians?
  • the title accurate and descriptive?
  • Is the abstract accurate, informative, and succinct?
  • Is the manuscript well organized, succinct and clear, or is it wordy, pompous or long-winded?
  • Is information repeated in multiple parts of the paper?
  • Is the level of explanation adequate? Excessive?
  • Are the methods adequately described, reproducible, and appropriate to the study purpose?
  • Did study subjects provide informed consent? Was the study approved by an ethics board?
  • Do the statistics match the study design?
  • Are tables and figures adequate or overdone? (Tables and figures should ADD to the text, not repeat what is presented in text.)
  • Are calculations and percentages correct?
  • Are the references adequate, excessive?

The review should be typed and legible. The reviewer should be positive, constructive, impartial, and empathetic in their comments to the author. The reviewer should not make cruel remarks; rather, they should point out strengths, identify weaknesses, and suggest improvements. They should not edit the article; nor should they tell the author whether they feel the article should be published. This is the editor's job.

Reviewers should limit comments to their area of competence and acknowledge their limits to the editor. They must declare conflicts of interest if they feel they cannot provide an unbiased review. Reviewers should not copy the manuscript, nor show it to colleagues. Confidentiality is important. If reviewers wish to enlist a colleague's help in reviewing the article, this should be discussed with the editor.

Review articles: should systematically collate and present available information on a given topic. Well-done reviews specify the method of searching and selecting articles, so that readers can determine that adequate information was gathered, that important information was not missed, and that the review was not overly influenced by the author's biases. Case Reports lack this level of rigor. To warrant publication, case reports should provide important educational points about an issue relevant to the target audience or provide new observations that will stimulate further research.

Peer Review Package: Manuscript review form

Downloadable: Manuscript Review Form

Manuscript title:
 
Reviewer name:
 

For each item below, score the article from 1-10
(1=very poor, 3=poor, 5=marginal, 7=good, 9=excellent, 10=best ever)

FOR ALL ARTICLES

How relevant is the topic to emergency physicians?
Does the article focus on important or novel aspects of this topic?
Is the title accurate and descriptive?
Is the article clear and understandable?
Is the writing redundant and wordy (score 0) or concise (score 10)
Is the article a pleasure to read?
Is the article an important addition to the EM literature?
Comment on the quality of the Introduction (see checklist)

FOR SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES (ORIGINAL RESEARCH)

Rate the overall quality of the study Methods (see checklist)
Were methods described adequately so you could replicate this study?
Was the Results section adequate (see checklist)
Comment on the quality of the Discussion (" ")

FOR CASE REPORTS

Comment on the importance of this case report (see criteria)

Reviewer's Recommendation:

Accept "as is" Revise and Accept
Revise and Reconsider Reject

What publication priority should this manuscript should have?
(A "1" rating indicates top priority.)

1 2 3 4 5

Provide reasons for your recommendations and rating.

 
 
 
 
 
 

Peer Review Package: Review comments to author

Note: Comments to the author should be aimed at improving the manuscript (e.g. suggesting revisions, style changes or correctable errors), or indicating, diplomatically, the reasons for not accepting it. Review comments will be sent to the author if revisions are required.

Downloadable: Comments to Author Form

Manuscript title:
 

Specific Comments from Reviewer to Author (please use the peer review checklist to guide comments to the author):

Refer to manuscript

Line # Specific Comments
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Peer Review Package: Checklist for evaluating scientific articles

Introduction

  • Does the introduction convince you that the study or topic is important.
  • Does the introduction accurately describe the current state of knowledge?
  • Does the introduction state clear objectives and hypotheses

Methods

  • Was the condition under study defined clearly (i.e. diagnostic criteria)
  • Was a sample size calculation performed?
  • Was the subject identification and enrollment process understandable?
  • Were patient eligibility criteria clear and appropriate?
  • Were the experimental and control treatments described adequately?
  • Was outcome assessment described (What? Who? How? Blinding?)
  • Was the statistical analysis adequate and appropriate?
  • Was patient and investigator blinding appropriate to the study design?

Results

  • Were all eligible patients accounted for (e.g. loss to follow-up/participant flow sheet)
  • Was the 1o outcome reported with a measure of precision?
  • Were all important patient outcomes reported?
  • Was adequate summary data presented (can you tell what happened to the patients)?

Discussion

  • Are the results discussed in light of the hypothesis?
  • Are sources of bias and imprecision identified?
  • Are the results discussed in the context of pre-existing knowledge?
  • Is external validity addressed?
  • Are limitations adequately reported?

Abstract

  • Is the abstract true to the data?

References

  • Are references adequate? Excessive? Correctly cited?

Tables And Figures

  • Are all of the tables and figures necessary?
  • Are tables and figures clear and understandable?
  • Are titles, labels and footnotes adequately descriptive?

CASE REPORTS: A useful case report should have educational value. A useful case report should report an unexpected association, shed new light on an EM topic, report a rare event or finding, describe a unique treatment, or suggest a new line of research.

Review Package: Reviewing Articles For The Humour And Humanity Section

Peer review is the evaluation of an article by expert peers. The primary goal of peer review is to help the author improve the quality of the manuscript. The secondary goal of peer review is to identify flaws and determine whether the article is worthy of publication. The peer reviewer's job is to advise the editor whether the manuscript should be published. The average time necessary to perform a review is 1.5 hours.

In general, the reviewer should consider whether the article is funny or insightful, whether it improves the reader's understanding of the issue, and whether it is appropriate for the journal's audience.

Specific points to address in the review:

  • Is the article of interest to emergency physicians?
  • Is the title accurate and descriptive?
  • Is the manuscript well organized, succinct, and clear, or is it wordy, pompous or long-winded?
  • Would the humour be considered "fair game" by 95% of our readers, or does it have inappropriate sexist, classist, racist or heterosexist references?
  • Will the reader be glad they took the time to read this article? Does the piece have a "feel good" or cathartic quality?
  • Are the references adequate, excessive?

The review should be typed and legible. The reviewer should be positive, constructive, impartial, and empathetic in their comments to the author. The reviewer should not make cruel remarks; rather, they should point out strengths, identify weaknesses and suggest improvements. They should not edit the article; nor should they tell the author whether they feel the article should be published. This is the editor's job.

Reviewers should limit comments to their area of competence and acknowledge their limits to the editor. They must declare conflicts of interest if they feel they cannot provide an unbiased review. Reviewers should not copy the manuscript, nor show it to colleagues. Confidentiality is important. If reviewers wish to enlist a colleague's help in reviewing the article, this should be discussed with the editor.

Continue to Page 2 >