How your submission will be evaluated by European Urology reviewers: Reviewer template and...
-
Upload
adrian-wilkins -
Category
Documents
-
view
225 -
download
1
Transcript of How your submission will be evaluated by European Urology reviewers: Reviewer template and...
How your submission will be evaluated by European Urology reviewers:
Reviewer template and Publication guidelines
Jim Catto
Associate Editor
European Urology
How to Write a Manuscript and Get It Published in European Urology
Reviewer template and Publication guidelines
The manuscript
The author The reviewer
1. The manuscript
Content:• Quality of work• Novelty of question• Report Type • Manuscript Structure• Checklists etc.
1. The manuscript
Content:• Quality of work• Novelty of question• Report Type • Manuscript Structure• Checklists etc.
Quality metrics:• Content• Strength of Message
2. The review: Tasks for the reviewer
a). Judge the work• Quality of work• Novelty of question• Level within the field• Interest to
readership…• Checklists etc.
2. The review: Tasks for the reviewer
a). Judge the work• Quality of work• Novelty of question• Level within the field• Interest to
readership…• Checklists etc.
b). Improve the work• Structured review
http://europeanurology.com/about-the-journal/reviewers
Structured reviews• Originality• Importance to readers• Science
– Defined question– Study design– Participants– Methods– Results– Interpretation/Disc/
Conclusion– References
• Add enough to the published literature?
• What does it add?• Cite relevant
references to support your comments on originality
Structured reviews• Originality• Importance to readers• Science
– Defined question– Study design– Participants– Methods– Results– Interpretation/Disc/
Conclusion– References
• Does this work matter?
• Will it help our readers to make better decisions and, if so, how?
• Is a European Urology the right journal for it?
Structured reviews• Originality• Importance to readers• Science
– Defined question– Study design– Participants– Methods– Results– Interpretation/Disc/
Conclusion– References
• Clearly defined: – Question or– Aims or – Objectives or– Hypothesis
• Is this appropriately answered?
Structured reviews• Design
– Appropriate– Adequate
• Participants: – Clearly described and
defined– Inclusion and exclusion
criteria described? – How representative are
of this category of patients?
• Originality• Importance to readers• Science
– Defined question– Study design– Participants– Methods– Results– Interpretation/Disc/
Conclusion– References
Structured reviews• Originality• Importance to readers• Science
– Defined question– Study design– Participants– Methods– Results– Interpretation/Disc/
Conclusion– References
• Adequately described? • State main outcome
measure? • Reporting standards:
– RCTs – Systematic reviews– Observational studies– Health economics studies
• Checklist’s? • Ethics
– IRB/EC approval– Reviewer opinion
Structured reviews• Originality• Importance to readers• Science
– Defined question– Study design– Participants– Methods– Results– Interpretation/Disc/
Conclusion– References
• Do they answer the question?
• Are the outcomes credible?
• Are the data well presented
• Justify and pay attention to the – Tables – Figures
• ? Supplementary data
Structured reviews• Originality• Importance to readers• Science
– Defined question– Study design– Participants– Methods– Results– Interpretation/Disc/
Conclusion– References
• Are these warranted by the data
• Discussed in the light of previous evidence
• Is the message clearly stated?
Structured reviews• Originality• Importance to readers• Science
– Defined question– Study design– Participants– Methods– Results– Interpretation/Disc/
Conclusion– References
• Up to date and relevant • Any glaring omissions?• Pertinent to European
Urology • ? Adherence to & role
of limited numbers
The Abstract
• Does it reflect the data?• Is it clear?• Does it serve purpose?• Does it stand alone or lead
into the paper?• Consistency
The Abstract is very important
Reporting guidelines
• Used to standardize reporting of clinical studies• Aim to enhance quality and transparency of health
care research• We advocate their use for these reasons• But for you …. they are a wealth of helpful
information about what and how to write?• Manuscripts conforming to CONSORT are more
likely to be accepted
Reporting guidelines
http://www.equator-network.org/
Reporting guidelines
http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-research-reporting/
Reporting guidelines
http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-research-reporting/
CONSORT: For RCT’s, but also excellent general advice
STARD: For diagnostic studiesPRISMA: For systematic reviews and meta-
analysesSTROBE: EpidemiologyREMARK: Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies
Thank-you