1 / 38

Publication Scholarship The Manuscript Reviewer

Learn about the benefits of becoming a peer reviewer for academic journals, including enhancing manuscripts, job requirements, professional notoriety, and new opportunities.

taran
Download Presentation

Publication Scholarship The Manuscript Reviewer

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Publication Scholarship The Manuscript Reviewer Henry Cohen, BS, MS, PharmD, FCCM, BCPP, CGP Associate Professor of Pharmacy Practice Arnold & Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences of Long Island University and Chief Pharmacotherapy Officer Director of Pharmacy Residency Programs (PGY-1 & PGY-2) Departments of Pharmacy and Medicine Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center Brooklyn, New York

  2. Scholarship Defined • The creation, discovery, advancement, or transformation of knowledge • Composed in a manner that is subject to peer review and effective communication • Assessed for quality by peer review and made public • If an activity cannot be evaluated using universally recognized criteria, it will not be universally valued

  3. Advantages of Serving as a Peer Reviewer for a Journal • Ensure robust, fair, non-bias, safe contributions to the literature • Critique can enhance the manuscript and increase relevance • Controversial publications • Review cutting edge research • Apply data to practice • Provide ideas for research endeavors

  4. Advantages of Serving as a Peer Reviewer for a Journal • Scholarly activity • Job requirement for reappointment promotion • Professional notoriety • Professional satisfaction • Provides new opportunities • Journal Editorial Board Member • Journal Editor • Publishing • Educational

  5. The Peer Review Process • Unpaid healthcare professionals • Peer review is the major criteria for publication of credible and useful information • Throwaway journals or trade magazines • Editor appoints reviewers • Peer-review is conducted anonymously • Peer Reviewers do not review galley proofs

  6. What credentials do I need to be a Peer Reviewer? • Training in area of expertise • PharmD or advanced degree • General Residency and Specialty Residency • Practice in area of expertise • Experience in area of expertise • 3 – 5 Years minimum • Research in area of expertise • Fellowship • Board Certified

  7. What credentials do I need to be a Peer Reviewer? • Publish manuscripts • Publish in peer reviewed journals • Chapters in text books • Web Chapters • Lecture in area of expertise • Invited presentations • Board certification review courses • Notoriety in area of expertise

  8. How can I be appointed to become a Peer Reviewer? • Choose an area that you are competent • Gain experience by reviewing Abstracts • Answer Journal “call” for peer reviewers • Ask the Journal Editor • Ask Journal Editorial Board Members for recommendations • After publishing an article – ask if opportunities exist • Respond to peer review in a timely fashion

  9. How to Critically Evaluate Published Drug Therapy & Drug-Induced Case Reports • Introduction – relevance and brief literature review • Establish a temporal and causal relationship • Detect confounding variables • Medications, OTCs, CAM, recreational drugs • Doses of concomitant medications • Medication compliance measurements • Drug serum levels and laboratory data • Drug and food interactions • Nutrition status and compliance • Comorbid diseases

  10. How to Critically Evaluate Published Drug Therapy & Drug-Induced Case Reports • Was a comprehensive literature review provided? • Focus on similarities and differences to the case report • Was a summary table with salient data provided? • Was the case validated with established criteria • Naranjo’s Algorithm • Summary/Conclusion • Is the conclusion valid based on the case report? • How can I apply the data from the report to my practice? • Provide a prospectus to answer unanswered questions

  11. How to Critically Evaluate Published Drug-Related Clinical Trials • Hypothesis • Objectives • How many and are they attainable? • Methodology • Sample size – was a power analysis completed? • Blinding • Length of study • Exclusion criteria • Medication source – generic or brand • Confounding variables (similar as with case reports) • Compliance statistics

  12. How to Critically Evaluate Published Drug-Related Clinical Trials • Results & Discussion • Do the results answer the objectives • Did the author’s compare and contrast the results with similar trials, and provide explanations for the differences • Conclusion • Is the conclusion is based on study objectives and results? • How can I apply the trial conclusions to my practice? • Provide a prospectus to answer unanswered questions

  13. Reviewing Submitted Manuscripts as a Referee • Minor flaws are acceptable • Major flaws • Fatal • Recoverable • Acceptable • Uncontrollable • Are the conclusions accurate? • Do the conclusions have any value in advancing present practice?

  14. Correcting Diction, Grammar, and Spelling • Diction • Choice of words; clear, correct and effective • Grammar • Syntax • Spelling • Reject based on poor diction, grammar, or spelling • Choppy, lengthy, redundant, awkward sentencing • Do not correct use of english • Request medical writer to edit and rewrite

  15. Reviewer Comment’sGI Bleed Study • What medications were used to treat patients with GI bleed? • Did patients receive medications prior to endoscopy? • When providing mortality data – provide the number in addition to the percentage. • What strength of epinephrine was used for endoscopic injection hemostasis? • The tables are not referenced in the text.

  16. Methods for Submitting Review • Web-based programs • Electronic copy submitted via mail, E-mail or fax • Generally cannot write comments on the manuscript • Not-blinded to editor • Blinded to author • Comments to editor and author • Comments to editor that are not viewable by author

  17. Reviewer’s Guidelines • Ensure ethical and humane study • Ensure Institutional Review Board Approval • Ensure HIPPA rules are followed • Appropriate use of references • Ensure that assays & scoring systems are validated • Recommend review for statistical analysis • Recommend “Editorial Reply” by an expert • Recommend experts to the editor

  18. Reviewer’s Guidelines • Does the abstract reflect accurately what the manuscript says • Tables and Figures • Are they useful? • How many? • Are they redundant with the text • Is this journal the right place for this manuscript?

  19. Reviewer’s Guidelines • Critically review the manuscript • Focus on scientific merit and value • Provide constructive criticism • Aim is to improve the quality • Do not be destructive or offensive • Judge each manuscript on its own merits • Avoid personal comments and opinions

  20. Reviewer’s Guidelines The Final Decision • Accept a manuscript • Perfect manuscript • Requires no changes • Cannot accept but will reconsider if revisions are made • Provide comments on scientific method • Provide recommendations for substantive changes • Reject • Provide a paragraph describing the merits of your decision

  21. Reviewer’s Guidelines • Choose only areas of expertise • May ask a colleague to review • Teaching tool for residents and new practitioners • Inform editor that this is not your area of expertise • Editors request 2 – 6 week deadlines • Inform editor immediately when you cannot meet a deadline • Review 2 – 6 manuscripts annually • Estimated 20 – 50 hours per year • Allow for busy-time, vacations • Recommend an alternative reviewer

  22. List of Subjects Disease specific Organ specific Subject specific CNS Head Injury Stroke Parkinson’s Disease Pulmonary Pulmonary Edema Pulmonary Emboli Pulmonary Function Tests Gastrointestinal PUD/GERD Laxatives Pancreatic Disease How to choose expert subjects for review

  23. Focus Areas for Reviewers • Publishing negative studies • Improves value of Meta-analysis • Avoid unnecessary duplication of ineffective therapies • Conflicts of interest • Reviewers from same department or institution • Reviewers should disclose and/or disqualify • Reviewer Certificate

  24. Rules for Reviewers • Cannot make copies of the manuscript for their files • Should return or destroy the manuscript after review • Cannot discuss publicly the manuscript or it’s ideas • Reviewers’ comments should be shared by the reviewers’ of the same manuscript

  25. Conclusions • The definition of a profession includes publication scholarship in peer reviewed journals • A Peer Reviewer is obligated to render an honest unbiased decision on whether a manuscript should be published • A Peer Reviewers comments should be constructive and improve the manuscript • Peer reviewers should have expertise in the subject that they serve as reviewers

  26. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Questions Questions Thanks!

  27. How does drug literature evaluation enhance the skills necessary to publish case reports and clinical trials? • Developing excellent drug literature evaluation skills spawns similar applicability and strategy to preparing case reports, and designing research protocols • Case reports are an excellent start for beginners • Comprehensive evaluation of clinical trials is an advanced skill, and integral to success • Repetition and experience is important to master this skill

  28. Teaching Drug Literature Evaluation Skills to Pharmacy Students, Residents, and Pharmacists • Journal Club Presentations • Provide goals and objectives for evaluations and grading • Present using slides, and a handout • Teach a primer on basic presentation skills • Encourage active participation from the audience • Require the audience to read the article

  29. Teaching Drug Literature Evaluation Skills to Pharmacy Students, Residents, and Pharmacists • Design an outline for the presentation • Faculty should review the outline BEFORE the student proceeds with the preparation of the presentation • Establish time limitations based on the outline • Case reports 20 minutes + 20 minutes of Q&A • Research Trials 30 – 40 minutes + 30 minutes of Q&A • 1 or 2 presentations every 4 – 8 weeks of clerkship

  30. Journal Club Evaluation Criteria:Review of Article • Accurately and concisely summarizes the introduction, study hypothesis, methodology, major points of results and discussion (if applicable) of the article. • Accurately presents the conclusion of the study. • Elaborates on any minor or major attributes or deficiencies of the study. If none are present, the presenter states such.

  31. Journal Club Evaluation Criteria: Ability to Answer Questions • Answers questions in a logical fashion. • Accurately answers and corresponds with the expected competency of the presenter. • Thinks creatively and analytically. May theorize, if not sure of an answer, but identifies answer as such.

  32. Journal Club Evaluation Criteria:Presentation Skills • Visual aids are appropriate • handouts and slides • Room setup • Establishes eye contact • Pronunciations are correct • Speaks with enthusiasm • Correct use of vocabulary • Not verbose or redundant • Appropriate use of pointer

  33. Teaching Drug Literature Evaluation Skills to Pharmacy Students, Residents, and Pharmacists • Review and master the subject and background • Read the article at least twice • Provide a background to the subject matter • Provide a checklist of plausible bias and confounding variables • Verify the authors statistics or references • Provide data from other case reports or trials beyond the data from the article

  34. Journal Club Evaluation Criteria:Evaluation with faculty • Ask presenter to perform self evaluation first • Areas of strengths and weakness • What strategy will they employ to improve their weaknesses? • Consider a standard grading system • Provide constructive criticism, and methods for improvement

  35. Standards to Assess Scholarship • Clear goals • Adequate preparation • Appropriate methods • Significant Results • Effective presentation • Reflective critique

More Related