Peer reviewing – some advice

The background should rouse the interest of the reader, be factual, brief, and address what is relevant for understanding the problem. Did the author succeed with this? Does the background have a lot of “dead weight” in the form of side issues and in-depth discussions that do not help to understand? How did the author use references? Are they relevant to the field? Are the references selected to fit the author’s purpose, or is research that is not in the author’s line also represented?

Is the purpose of the work meaningful/clinically relevant? The purpose is often a concluding ending of the background/introduction and should be a logical consequence. An unclear purpose is sometimes veiled by many vague words. A clear purpose cannot be misunderstood. Clarity is also essential to assess if the methods used are relevant.

Conversely: Is the method appropriate/viable for the chosen framing of the question? The method chosen should be accepted and preferably standardised in the current field of research. If not, it should be clearly stated why the author decided not to use the standard method, for example, because it is not sensitive enough for this particular experiment or that it is too expensive etc. At worst, the method measures something other than what was being looked for, and then the purpose falls flat. Are there flaws in the method/execution worth discussing?

Are the results reasonable and in line with previous studies? Significant deviations from the expected results can indicate method errors or that something has gone wrong in, for example, the selection of subjects. Did these particular laboratory animals happen to be different from the usual ones? What statistical tests have been done and are they relevant to this particular comparison? Is the number of interviewees/patients sufficient?

If they are not, how does the author deal with it in the discussion section? Are there other interpretations than those of the author? Is the discussion based on the results? Are there things that seem to have been omitted? How does the author deal with “deviating” results? Are there genuine criticisms of the author’s own method, or are the restrictions addressed by the author only mandatory?

Perhaps the most difficult task is to write materials and methods, results and discussion in the right place. Did the author manage it?

The oral peer review should address the content of the paper, not its form. If the peer-reviewer has opinions about the form of the paper, they should be expressed in writing, as comments in the draft of the paper which the peer-reviewer has received.

The short time the peer-reviewer, the respondent and the auditorium have for each paper is too valuable to spend on “on page five, you forgot a comma on the third row from the end”. The most important thing for the oral peer review is to be about the scientific work and not get caught up on the language or layout of the report.