The Editors’ guide for peer review of papers submitted to Endoscopy

What do editors expect from reviewers?

Peer review is fundamental to the academic process and a journal’s success depends to a large extent on the quality of its reviewers. Endoscopy is one of the leading journals worldwide in gastroenterology and endoscopy and our reviewers contribute significantly to that status.

A reviewer will:

• help the journal’s editors, as an expert in the field, to evaluate the originality of the paper (the results have not been previously published, and of course that there is no plagiarism).

• identify any flaws in the paper (scientific and presentational) and point out what has been done better than in other cases/studies.

• give constructive feedback to authors, with suggestions for improvement.

• comment objectively and fairly. Reviewers need to bear in mind that their own expert interest in the field might influence their attitude. They must also clarify any potential conflict of interest and declare this to the editors.

• send a timely response. Timely peer review is very important for authors (and a key ingredient of a journal’s success). Whatever the reviewer’s recommendation, authors appreciate a reasonably quick response even if it is negative.

• be aware that the paper under review is confidential: the data and findings are the exclusive property of the authors and should not be disclosed to others.

Every year during EUG Week, prizes will be given to Endoscopy’s top-rated reviewers. All reviews are rated by the editors according to the following criteria:

• completeness of the review and accuracy of assessment of the strengths and limitations of the manuscript

• constructiveness of comments

• timeliness

The aim of the present guide is to describe what the editors believe should be reported in a peer review for Endoscopy. It outlines what should be included in a confidential report to the editors on the one hand, and on the other it gives a structure for the comments to the authors. The points are summarized in a checklist in the peer review template (below). This template is also sent to reviewers when they agree to review a paper.

^* on behalf of the Editors of Endoscopy

• Bibliography and recommended reading

• 1 Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE. How to review a paper. Advan Physiol Educ 2003; 27: 47-52
• 2 Davis H. How to review a paper: A guide for newcomers and a refresher for the expert. Available at: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/hcd/reviewing.html Accessed October 7 2012
• 3 Pearlmutter BA. How to review a scientific paper. Available at: http://www.bcl.hamilton.ie/~barak/how-to-review.html Accessed October 7 2012
• 4 Burnham JC. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA 1990; 263: 1323-1329
• 5 Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F et al. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?. JAMA 1998; 280: 231-233
• 6 Marusic M, Marusic A. Good editorial practice: editors as educators. Croat Med J 2001; 42: 113-120
• 7 Provenzale JM, Stanley RJ. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185: 848-854
• 8 Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA 2002; 287: 2786-2790
• 9 Pierson DJ. The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respir Care 2004; 49: 1246-1252
• 10 Hoppin Jr FG. How I review an original scientific article. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166: 1019-1023