Editors’ Pick Criteria:

RELEVANCE, ORIGINALITY & SIGNIFICANCE 20%

AND ETHICAL CONDUCT

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES 15%

INTERNAL VALIDITY, MATERIALS, METHODS 25%

EXTERNAL VALIDITY / GENERALIZABILITY

RESULTS (INCLUDING TABLES, FIGURES) 15%

DISCUSSION, REVIEW OF LITERATURE, 25%

LIMITATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, and
CONCLUSIONS

Detailed Guide Questions / Explanations:

RELEVANCE, ORIGINALITY & SIGNIFICANCE 20%

AND ETHICAL CONDUCT:

1. Is the information in this manuscript consistent with our mission:

It aims to provide local and overseas otolaryngologists, other surgeons and physicians, health and allied
medical professionals, academicians and scientists from other disciplines, with a scholarly forum for the
exchange of ideas and information in the discipline of otolaryngology - head and neck medicine and surgery
and related fields that are especially relevant to health professionals in the Philippine and Asia Pacific
context. It publishes peer-reviewed original articles (including clinical trials, laboratory investigations,
effectiveness of diagnostic or therapeutic techniques); evidence-based medicine (including clinical practice
guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, evaluations of current practices and commentaries);
case reports with discussions; surgical and instrumentation innovations and illustrations of new techniques;
review articles; imaging and histopathology cases; lectures and symposia; brief reports and abstracts;
correspondence and guest editorials and studies relating to behavioral, epidemiological, educational or
controversial issues in otolaryngology - head and neck medicine and surgery and related fields. We are
particularly committed to publishing research and innovations for health that are relevant in low and middle-
income countries.

2. Is the manuscript original, approved by an IRB (if applicable) and free of undisclosed conflicts of
interest?

3. Does the manuscript provide a unique contribution compared to current literature? Are there
inconsistencies with previous research?

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES 15%

1. Does the introduction provide a context and brief background for the study, giving only pertinent
references from the literature?

2. Is the gap/ lacunae / reason behind the study, or nature of the research problem and its significance,
major hypothesis or rationale (if applicable), presented clearly?
3. Are the objectives or purpose of the study focused and clearly stated?

INTERNAL VALIDITY, MATERIALS, METHODS 25%

EXTERNAL VALIDITY / GENERALIZABILITY

1. Are the study design, conduct and analysis described in a manner that is unbiased, appropriate and
reproducible / replicable?

2. Was the study sample chosen appropriately and described in adequate detail for the results to be
generalized?

3. Does the methods section provide sufficient detail to permit replication by others?

RESULTS (INCLUDING TABLES, FIGURES) 15%

1. Is demographic data of the study population (if applicable) provided?

2. Are outcomes and measurements presented in logical sequence without interpreting, or discussing
their meaning or significance?

3. Is unnecessary text used when data can be summarized instead in tables and figures? Are tables and
figures judiciously used to complement text, and "show" when it is better than "telling"?

DISCUSSION, REVIEW OF LITERATURE, 25%

LIMITATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, and
CONCLUSIONS

1. Is the discussion restricted to explaining what the significant findings mean, emphasizing new and
important aspects of the study?

2. Are findings of the study compared and contrasted with previous studies reviewed?

3. Are plausible explanations offered to explain findings, with underlying scientific mechanisms or
pathophysiology?

4. Does the paper avoid excessive generalization, speculation, digression and theorizing?

5. Does the study elucidate on but not repeat data in the results section, discuss implications and
limitations, and relate these to other and contradictory literature?

6. Are limitations clearly acknowledged, especially where they contribute bias? Are recommendations
appropriate?

7. Are conclusions supported by the study evidence? Are new hypothesis stated when warranted, but
clearly labeled as such?
Does the paper avoid making unfounded conclusions or statements, including claiming priority of content
without sufficient basis?