how to review a paper for european urology
DESCRIPTION
HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER FOR EUROPEAN UROLOGY. Stephen A. Boorjian, MD, FACS Professor of Urology Director, Urologic Oncology Fellowship Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN. DISCLOSURES. Financial: none Intellectual: “this is how I do it” Many approaches can be successful. OUTLINE FOR TALK. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER FOR EUROPEAN UROLOGY
Stephen A. Boorjian, MD, FACSProfessor of UrologyDirector, Urologic Oncology FellowshipMayo ClinicRochester, MN
DISCLOSURES• Financial: none
• Intellectual: “this is how I do it”– Many approaches can be successful
OUTLINE FOR TALK• Section-by-section manuscript review tips
• Importance of serving as a manuscript reviewer
• Conclusions
HOW TO REVIEW A MANUSCRIPT FOR EUROPEAN UROLOGY
POINTS TO CONSIDER DURING REVIEW
• Originality of question/topic
• “Robustness” of dataset
• Appropriate methodology
• Importance of findings• Do the present data add in a meaningful and
significant way to the existing literature on the topic?
MANUSCRIPT TITLE
• Does the title accurately represent the data presented?
• Does the title sufficiently represent the data presented– “Catch the eye” of the casual reader
ABSTRACT
• Very important – often only part of manuscript read
• Can it be read as a stand-along representation of manuscript?– Critical methodology/data included– Conclusions supported by data provided
• Does it follow the EU guidelines?
INTRODUCTION
• Brief background to topic, citing relevant literature
• Key – does the Introduction “sell” the importance of the topic/need for the study?
• Are the objective(s) of the study clearly stated?
METHODS• Level of detail provided
– i.e. explain reasoning for select patients being excluded from study/provide demonstration that not biasing analyses in remaining cohort
• Critical – are the methods chosen appropriate
to address the question of interest?– Validated instrument for QoL assessment– i.e. Cox model vs logistic regression analysis
METHODS: REPORTING GUIDELINES
• Used to standardize reporting of clinical studies – Enhance research quality– Enhance transparency
• CONSORT (diagram) – for RCT• PRISMA – for systematic reviews + meta-
analysis
• EQUATOR websitehttp://www.equator-network.org/
RESULTS
• KEY SECTION OF MANUSCRIPT– “Non-fixable” with revisions
• (For clinical studies):– Size of dataset (power of analyses)– Duration of follow-up for endpoint of interest
and disease state being studied• 2 years ok to report mortality in mRCC• 2 years not ok for mortality in localized PCa
RESULTS
• Are relevant demographic details regarding study population and treatment provided?
• Are the outcome measures reported appropriate and sufficient?– i.e. text should not present p values only, but raw
numbers (%) provided as well
• Do the reported findings make sense? – RFS, CSS, OS congruous?
REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT TABLES
• “Readability”– Too much/too little data provided to easily read
• Are all tables referenced in text?
• Do tables/text present duplicate data? Are conflicting data presented?
• Do the numbers in the table add-up?
REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT TABLES
• Sequence/completeness of tables– Demographic data
– Univariate comparisons
– Multivariate models• HR, 95% CI, p values provided
REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT FIGURES
• Are all the figures included necessary?– No duplication
• Is data presentation clear and not mis-labeled?– Appropriate axis/scales on graphs
• Can figures be read “stand-alone” (without accompanying text)?– For Kaplan-Meier curve:
• p values provided• Number of patients at risk at various timepoints provided
DISCUSSION SECTION
• Orderly flow– Summarize results
– Contextualize results = KEY!• In light of existing literature on the topic
• Explain discrepancies in findings from prior similar series
– Methodology, study population
• Offer why present study = unique
DISCUSSION SECTION• Paragraph detailing study limitations
• Conclusions (in this section or as stand-alone section)– Are the conclusions supported by the data
presented?– Does the manuscript leave you with a message
regarding the importance of the study?
REFERENCES: A WINDOW TO THE AUTHORS
• Reflects authors’ familiarity with subject matter– Marker of well-done paper
• I often read after abstract and before manuscript
• Review paper – absolutely critical (i.e. = “data”)– Comprehensive + contemporary
• Most recent series if multiple from one center– Will be reference basis for readers
REFERENCES: A WINDOW TO THE AUTHORS
• Original (non-review) paper – still essential– Inclusive of relevant series
• Largest• Contemporary• Best datasets
– Look at quality of journals cited – JAMA, JCO, Eur Urol
– Avoid over self-citation• But – appropriate referencing of one’s prior work
may reflect expertise in subject area
MISCELLANEOUS REVIEW COMMENTS
• Does the manuscript follow EU guidelines?– Length of abstract/manuscript– Number/format for references– Inclusion of all required sections (Take Home Message)– Is the paper clearly formatted for another journal?!!!
• Cover letter addressed to another editor!
• Writing style/presentation– If you found it hard to understand/read, so will target
audience
ORGANIZING YOUR REVIEW FOR SUBMISSION: COMMENTS TO AUTHORS
• 2-3 sentence summary of manuscript/critical findings
• Major concerns/suggested changes– Project concept, study design, study population– Methodologic/statistical concerns
• Minor concerns– References– Modifications to tables/figures– Formatting
ORGANIZING YOUR REVIEW FOR SUBMISSION: COMMENTS TO EDITOR
• Brief summary of decision recommended and key points to support– Originality of question– “Robustness” of dataset– Appropriate methodology– Importance of findings
• Do the present data add in a meaningful and significant way to the existing literature on the topic?
HOW TO GET BETTER AT MANUSCRIPT REVIEWS
• Practice, practice, practice
• Track disposition of manuscripts you review– Read other reviewers’ comments
ARE REVIEWERS EVER WRONG?
• Eur Urol process makes effort for consensus, but message/novelty of work may be missed
• Authors may appeal a decision– Submit (timely) letter to journal – Well-reasoned explanation of why author feels
reviewers’ assessment incorrect
– May (may not) lead to manuscript being sent for re-review to garner additional opinions
WHY IS MANUSCRIPT REVIEWING IMPORTANT TO DO FOR YOU?
BENEFITS OF SERVING AS A REVIEWER I: PERSONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT
• Become more facile at critical review
• Become a better author – Types of analysis– Presentation of data
• Reviewing a manuscript ≈ writing a good manuscript
• Stay abreast of current literature – PubMed topic as part of review
BENEFITS OF SERVING AS A REVIEWER II: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
• Critical part of important process– Currency of academics = peer-reviewed
publications
• Opportunity for academic recognition– Best Reviewer, Editorial Board positions
• Establishment of contacts– Editors get to “know the name”
• Letters for academic promotion
BENEFITS OF SERVING AS A REVIEWER III
• FUN!
• Opportunity for “first-look” at new/exciting data
• Opportunity to improve quality of publications
• Diversion from other clinical/academic responsibilities
CONCLUSIONS• Manuscript review should address:
– Originality of question– “Robustness” of dataset– Appropriate methodology– Importance of findings
• Personal + professional benefits to reviewing
• Enjoy the process – “academic hobby”
THANK YOU
Questions?