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
Review
. 2021 Jan 19;2(1):e027.
doi: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000027. eCollection 2021 Mar.

How to Review a Surgical Scientific Paper: A Guide for Critical Appraisal

Stephanie H Greco  1 , Catherine H Davis  2 , Caitlin W Hicks  3 , Alison E Kaye  4 , Jessica E Maxwell  5 , Arghavan Salles  6 , Marion C W Henry  7
Affiliations
Review

How to Review a Surgical Scientific Paper: A Guide for Critical Appraisal

Stephanie H Greco et al. Ann Surg Open. .

Abstract

It is important for surgeons to participate in the peer-review process of scientific literature. As the number of published manuscripts continues to increase, there is a great need for volunteerism in this arena. However, there is little formal or informal training, which can help surgeons provide unbiased and meaningful reviews. Therefore, it is critical to provide more resources and guidelines to aid surgeons during the review process. The purpose of this paper is to provide a structured guide for a quality review of a surgical paper. This review represents the work of the Association of Women Surgeons Publications Committee.

Keywords: critique; review; surgical paper.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest can come in a variety of forms, ranging from financial to personal.7 In general, if a reviewer or their spouse has a financial interest in the topic of the manuscript, that would be considered a conflict of interest. Similarly, if the author is either a close friend or enemy, this may bias a reviewer’s opinion of his or her work. Often, potential conflicts of interest fall into a “grey” zone, where one is unsure of how much the perceived conflict would impact one’s ability to provide a fair review. In these instances, a reviewer may reach out to the editor to explain their concerns, and he or she can help decide whether or not the assignment is appropriate. It is similarly important that a reviewer expand their knowledge of a journal, its particular peer-review standards, and its potential as a predatory for-profit open access journal. It is certainly possible to be able to offer a comprehensive professional review for such a journal, but one should consider that a “journal,” even with a very legitimate-sounding title, may actually have unethical or very low standards. In some cases, journals may have a policy of refusing to reject submissions regardless of quality or integrity, may have little or no actual editorial oversight, and often charge exorbitant fees for publication. A potential reviewer has the responsibility of verifying the source of the peer-review request and to consider their role in discouraging predatory journal behaviors. If a reviewer is able to answer “Yes” to each of the first 3 questions and does not have a conflict of interest, then they should accept the offer to review.Disclosure: The authors declare that they have nothing to disclose.

References

    1. Hill JA. How to review a manuscript. J Electrocardiol. 2016; 49:109–11. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Allen TW. Peer review guidance: how do you write a good review? J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2013; 113:916–20. - PubMed
    1. Stahel PF, Moore EE. How to review a surgical paper: a guide for junior referees. BMC Med. 2016; 14: 29. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. JRSM. 2006; 99:178–182. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Davis CH, Bass BL, Behrns KE, et al. . Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018; 3:4. - PMC - PubMed