Developing Skills That Serve Our Journal, Your Colleagues as Potential Authors, and You

Stiller‐Reeve M. How to write a thorough peer review. Nature Careers Community, Nature 2018 Oct 8. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-06991-0. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06991-0. Accessed: December 31, 2018.

This short article provides guidance for invited reviewers of journal manuscript submissions. It stresses the responsibility involved in providing peer review, the combination of authority and humility needed, and the very particular importance of clarity and precision. Although it was not written specifically for either Movement Disorders or Movement Disorders Clinical Practice, its messages are worthy for study by current reviewers or aspirants for future assignments in our Society journals.

Journal reviewers carry high responsibility, given that publications in well‐regarded peer‐review journals remain among the highest academic credentials. The author suggests three readings, one for overall impressions, one for the core science, and a third for style and communication issues. An important point stressed throughout the guidelines is the reviewer's own declaration of his or her expertise and the areas of focus for the review. Equally important, when there are areas of identified expertise on which the reviewer cannot comment with authority, the reviewer needs to acknowledge this point so that the editor can acquire the needed commentary from another expert. The guidelines also suggest that flaws be categorized in all three readings as fatal, major, and minor. A fatal flaw largely stops the review process, and the reviewer simply focuses on a very clear documentation of the crucial flaw. Major flaws, likely requiring very significant considerations by the editor and authors if allowed to submit a revision, need point‐by‐point descriptions and suggestions for correction. Minor flaws may be spelling, structural, syntactic, or organizational in nature, and each one is not necessarily needed to be cited.

A fundamental message is that finding fault without clearly explaining your perception of the fault and anchoring the critique on the exact text of the submission only leads to frustration and defeat. A clearly stated series of criticisms that are tightly referenced to the source document will allow the submitting authors to understand the review; if their own wording was unclear, they will understand and take the responsibility to correct the misperception; if their own scientific work was weak, they will understand the added requirements expected.

Having served as an editor, author, and reviewer, I found this short essay useful, though a bit elitist. How many journal readers ever get the privilege to review an article for a peer‐review journal? In this regard, however, I alert readers that our editors are always looking for well‐equipped reviewers. It is appropriate and recommended that interested readers identify themselves as available for reviews in a given area of expertise. Having this short essay beside the submitted manuscript will be particularly useful to new reviewers and the authors privileged to have their scientific work responsibly critiqued.

Disclosures

Ethical Compliance Statement: The author confirms that he has read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirms that this work is consistent with those guidelines. Neither informed patient consent nor IRB approval was required for this work.

Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest: The author reports no sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.

Financial Disclosures for previous 12 months: Consulting or Advisory Board Membership with honoraria: Boston Scientific, Oxford Biomedica. Grants/Research: Funding to Rush University Medical Center from NIH, Michael J. Fox Foundation for research conducted by Dr. Goetz. Dr. Goetz directs the Rush Parkinson's Disease Research Center that receives support from the Parkinson's Foundation, and some of these funds support Dr. Goetz's salary as well as his research efforts. He participated in the directorship of the translation program for the MDS‐UPDRS and UDysRS and received funds directed to Rush University Medical Center from the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society (IPMDS) for this effort. Honoraria: Presidential stipend from the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society paid to Rush University Medical Center as part of Dr. Goetz's salary. Faculty stipend from the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society. Legal deposition payment received from Cray‐Huber Attorneys. Lecture honorarium from the University of Pittsburgh. Royalties: Elsevier Publishers, Oxford University Press, Wolters Kluwer. Salary: Rush University Medical Center.