Peer review

1. Peer review Critique of a scientific paper

2. Key elements • Scientific argument • Methods • Writing • Tables and figures

3. Background: Asks a specific question  • What is the research question? • What are the global issues? • How do they apply to the local context? Argument

4. Results: Reports sound scientific data that meet the objectives  • Was the research question addressed? • Is there enough detail? • Do results allow statistical inference? Argument

5. Discussion: Interprets results, builds a case based on data and the literature  • Are the results interpreted on the basis of what is already known? • Is the case for the conclusions well made? Argument

6. Limitations: Described, analyzed,impact on conclusions clear  • Key limitations, could influence main conclusions discussed? • Limitations? • Description • Description of the consequences • What may be done to address the limitation • Interpretation of the results in light of the limitation Argument

7. Suggests next steps in intervention and research  Next steps suggested in terms of Action?Research? Are they relevant? Are they based upon the data? Argument

8. Design adequate to meet objectives  • What are the study objectives? • Measure a quantity? • Test a hypothesis? • What kind of indicators does the study objectives call for? • Is the study design explicit? • Can the study design lead to the indicator needed? Methods

9. Population well defined and relevant to the objectives  • What are the inclusion criteria? • What are the exclusion criteria? • Is the population relevant to the objectives? Methods

10. Definitions are specified, clear and based upon standard criteria  • Are the outcomes defined? • Are the exposures/interventions defined? • Are standard definitions used? Methods

11. Sampling methods are sound  • Is the sample described? • How was it selected? • Are sampling methods compatible with classical methods? • Will the sample address the objectives? Methods

12. Sample size: Estimated appropriately and is sufficient  • Mention of a sample size calculation? • Are the methods/formula used relevant? • Are the assumptions making sense? • Will the power be sufficient to address the objectives? Methods

13. Design is free of bias  • Selection biases • Information biases Methods

14. Data collected is relevant and well described  • Is it clear what data was collected? • Is the data collection relevant to the study objectives? • Unnecessary information? • Key piece of information missing? Methods

15. Data collected with methods ensuring sufficient quality  • What kind of instruments were used? • Who collected the data? • What were the quality assurance procedures? Methods

16. Analysis thought of beforehand and appropriate  • Is there a mention of an analysis plan? • Does the data analysis address the objectives? • Are there multiple/excessive comparisons? Methods

17. Indicators appropriate and well calculated  • Are indicators appropriate for study design? • Disease frequency • Incidence • Prevalence • Association • Odds ratio • Prevalence ratio • Risk ratio • Are indicators calculated correctly? Methods

18. Statistical tests are appropriate and well computed  • Were the tests chosen appropriate? • Were computations correct? • Is the interpretation right? Methods

19. Appropriate attention to protection of human subjects  • Does the study involve human subjects? • Mention of possible risks/benefits? • Confidentiality of data? • Informed consent? • Ethics committee approval (if applicable)? Methods

20. Content well distributed  • IMRAD • Does each section contain what it is supposed to contain? • Does any section contain irrelevant material? • Are there elements placed in the wrong section? Writing

21. Language is simple and clear  • Is the language simple, avoiding jargon? • Are sentences short? • Is the argument structured? • Are the meanings specific? Writing

22. Writing is sequential, reads well  • Are sentences starting where the previous ended? • Is the writing taking the reader by the hand from the introduction to the conclusion? • Active voice? Writing

23. Words: Precise and consistent  • Are appropriate words chosen? • Are identical words used to refer to the same concepts? • Are words used in the context of their accepted scientific meanings? • No use of ‘significant’ if does not to refer to statistics Writing

24. Only relevant and useful tables and/or figures  • How many tables and figures are there? • Are the tables redundant with the figures? • Are the tables/figures all needed? Tables and figures

25. Choice of graph/table to display information is appropriate  • Are the graph(s) effective at capturing a piece of information? • Are the table(s) effective at displaying the data to: • Point to the main trends? • Point to the main exceptions to these trends? Tables and figures

26. Tables are clear, exact and the totals add up  • Are the tables readable? • Are the titles explicit? • Are there row / column summaries? • Do the totals add up? • Are there footnotes to explain unclear points? Tables and figures

27. Graphs appropriate, can be understood  • Is there a clear message behind every graph? • Are the graphs drawn in a way that communicate the message effectively? • Is the ink-to-data ratio low? Tables and figures

28. Take home message Use a checklist to evaluate • Assess the strength of the argument • Review the methods point by point • Evaluate the effectiveness of the writing • Check appropriateness of the tables/figures