Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Feb 14:14:29.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0578-6.

How to review a surgical paper: a guide for junior referees

Affiliations

How to review a surgical paper: a guide for junior referees

Philip F Stahel et al. BMC Med. .

Abstract

Reviewing a surgical manuscript is not an easy task, and there is no formal training available for young referees in the early stage of their careers. Accepting a peer review assignment represents a personal honor for the invited referee and a fundamental ethical responsibility towards the scientific community. Designated reviewers must be accomplished and knowledgeable in the area of the respective topic of investigation. More importantly, they must be aware and cognizant about the cardinal ethical responsibility and stewardship for ensuring the preservation of scientific knowledge of unbiased and unquestionable accuracy in the published literature. Accepting a review assignment should never be taken lightly or considered a simple task, regardless of the reviewer's level of seniority and expertise. Indeed, there are multiple challenges, difficulties, and 'hidden dangers' that jeopardize the completion of a high-quality review, particularly in the hands of less experienced or novice reviewers. The present article was designed to provide a brief, concise, and practical guide on how to review manuscripts for the 'junior referee' in the field of surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:422–8. doi: 10.1007/BF02599618. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stahel PF, Moore EE. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system. BMC Med. 2014;12:179. doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0179-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Guller U, DeLong ER. Interpreting statistics in medical literature: a vade mecum for surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198(3):441–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2003.09.017. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Guller U, Oertli D. Sample size matters: a guide for surgeons. World J Surg. 2005;29(5):601–5. doi: 10.1007/s00268-005-7921-y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Guller U. Surgical outcomes research based on administrative data: inferior or complementary to prospective randomized clinical trials? World J Surg. 2006;30(3):255–66. doi: 10.1007/s00268-005-0156-0. - DOI - PubMed