How to review a journal paper critically

Christy K. Holland1,2
1
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Health and Disease, University of

Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

2
Editor in Chief, Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology

Peer review is the cornerstone of publishing in Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. Diversity
of perspectives is an integral part of a successful vetting process. The editor, associate editors,
and reviewers who examine each manuscript are the authors' peers: persons with comparable
standing in the same research field as the authors themselves. Peer review contributes to
improving the quality of a published paper, ensures previous work is properly acknowledged,
highlights the importance and novelty of the findings, detects plagiarism and fraud, and promotes
academic career development. Reviewers help by providing a comprehensive analysis of the
abstract, introduction and background, methodology, results and discussion, conclusion,
references, tables and figures. Good reviewers provide a detailed and timely report supporting
statements regarding whether the research is original, novel, and important to the field of
ultrasound in medicine and biology. The top reviewers currently make up the advisory editorial
board, whose names appear on the face page of Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. However,
an expanded list of multidisciplinary and international reviewers with broader capabilities are
called on frequently. Either a list of page and line numbers accompanies specific comments and
constructive criticism, or these comments are embedded in the portable document file (.pdf) of
the submitted manuscript. Reviewers should be prepared to demonstrate objectivity, critique
revised versions of the manuscript, as well as provide a clear recommendation whether the paper
can be accepted for publication, requires minor or major modifications, or should be rejected
altogether with no opportunity to revise. Tips for providing and navigating peer review in
Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology will be reviewed and discussed.
How to review a paper critically
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Christy K. Holland, Ph.D.
Click to edit Master
Editor in Chief title style
Editorial
Ultrasound Board Meeting
in Medicine and Biology

8 September 2019
Melbourne, Australia
 2

Peer Review

•  Is critical to the veracity of scientific progress

•  Improves the quality of the published paper
•  Ensures previous work is acknowledged
•  Determines the importance of findings
•  Detects plagiarism and fraud
•  Plays a central role in academic career development
 3

Why should you review?

 4

Who makes a good reviewer?

•  Declines if unable to provide a report within 3 weeks

•  Suggests another expert reviewer or two if declining
•  Provides a thorough and comprehensive report
•  Submits the report on time
•  Provides well founded specific comments for authors
•  Gives constructive criticism
•  Demonstrates objectivity
•  Provides a clear recommendation to the editor
•  Editorial Board Members!
 5

Has the paper been submitted

to the appropriate journal?

The paper should reach the authors’ intended target

audience
•  Is the type of article appropriate? (full length original
contribution, clinical note, technical note, letter to the
editor).
•  Check the references in the article as an indication.
•  Read the journal’s aims and scope on the journal
homepage before completing the review.
•  Read the journal’s Guide for Authors.
•  Has the paper been submitted to another journal
simultaneously?
 6

UMB Article Types

•  Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, high-quality research investigations dealing with
ultrasound and its applications in biomedicine.
•  Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in ultrasound in medicine and biology.
These articles may be of any length and are peer-reviewed.
•  Technical Notes: Brief studies introducing or expanding on a new technical ultrasound
approach that have been testing in vitro, in silico or in a limited clinical or biological study. These
should be approximately 12 double-spaced submitted pages or 4 printed pages or less.
•  Clinical Notes: Brief clinical studies in a limited patient population that demonstrate a novel
application of an existing ultrasound technology or studies a disease etiology or normal imaging
target variant that does not exist in the literature. These should be approximately 12 double-
spaced submitted pages or 4 printed pages or less. However, submissions based solely on the
description of a single case, i.e. case reports, will not be considered for publication.
•  Editorials: Written by the Editor in Chief, Associate Editors, or Guest Editor on an occasional
basis.
•  Letters to the Editor: Comments on articles published in the Journal and on other matters of
interest to biomedical ultrasound researchers. They should be short (normally not more than 400
words), double-spaced, and include references where appropriate. Where a published article is
involved, the original author(s) will be invited to submit a response.
•  Book Reviews: Reviews and abstracts of the current literature in the appropriate fields will be
published.
 7

Aims and Scope

Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology is the official journal of the World

Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. The journal publishes
original contributions that demonstrate a novel application of an existing
ultrasound technology in clinical diagnostic, interventional and therapeutic
applications, new and improved clinical techniques, the physics, engineering
and technology of ultrasound in medicine and biology, and the interactions
between ultrasound and biological systems, including bioeffects. Papers that
simply utilize standard diagnostic ultrasound as a measuring tool will be
considered out of scope. Extended critical reviews of subjects of
contemporary interest in the field are also published, in addition to occasional
editorial articles, clinical and technical notes, book reviews, letters to the
editor and a calendar of forthcoming meetings. It is the aim of the journal fully
to meet the information and publication requirements of the clinicians,
scientists, engineers and other professionals who constitute the biomedical
ultrasonic community.
Visit the web site of the World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and
Biology at: http://www.wfumb.org/ for more information, including affiliated
organizations, congresses, newsletters and reports.
 8

Aims and Scope

Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology is the official journal of the World

Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. The journal publishes
original contributions that demonstrate a novel application of an existing
ultrasound technology in clinical diagnostic, interventional and therapeutic
applications, new and improved clinical techniques, the physics, engineering
and technology of ultrasound in medicine and biology, and the interactions
between ultrasound and biological systems, including bioeffects. Papers that
simply utilize standard diagnostic ultrasound as a measuring tool will be
considered out of scope. Extended critical reviews of subjects of
contemporary interest in the field are also published, in addition to occasional
editorial articles, clinical and technical notes, book reviews, letters to the
editor and a calendar of forthcoming meetings. It is the aim of the journal fully
to meet the information and publication requirements of the clinicians,
scientists, engineers and other professionals who constitute the biomedical
ultrasonic community.
Visit the web site of the World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and
Biology at: http://www.wfumb.org/ for more information, including affiliated
organizations, congresses, newsletters and reports.
 9

UMB Associate Editors

JONATHAN M. RUBIN, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Associate Editor for Clinical Applications of Ultrasound
F. STUART FOSTER, University of Toronto, Canada
Associate Editor for Image Processing and Instrumentation
MARTIN KRIX, Bracco Imaging Germany GmbH, Germany
Associate Editor for Clinical Applications of Ultrasound
PAI CHI LI, National Taiwan University, Taipai, Taiwan
Associate Editor for Imaging Physics and Blood Flow Measurements
NICO DE JONG, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands
Associate Editor for Ultrasound Contrast Agents
MARK L. PALMERI, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
Associate Editor for Clinical Applications of Ultrasound
ELEANOR STRIDE, University College London, UK
Associate Editor for Subject Index and Topical Reviews
 10

Checklist for reviewing a paper:

First impressions
•  Is the research original, novel and important to the field?
•  Has the appropriate structure and language been used?
•  Is the overall length of the paper appropriate (usually < 25 double
spaced pages)?
•  Indicate why a paper is (un)acceptable and what is required to
make it acceptable. Authors especially appreciate it if you cite
references supporting your comments.
Abstract
•  Is it really a summary?
•  Does it include key findings?
•  Is it an appropriate length?
 11

Checklist for reviewing a paper:

Introduction
•  Is it effective, clear and well organized?
•  Does it really introduce and put into perspective what follows?
•  Suggest changes in organization and point authors to appropriate
citations.
•  Be specific – don't write generic statements like, "the authors have
done a poor job.”
Methodology
•  Can a colleague reproduce the experiments and get the same
outcomes?
•  Did the authors include proper references to previously published
methodology?
•  Is the description of new methodology accurate?
•  Could or should the authors have included supplementary
material?
 12

Checklist for reviewing a paper:

Results and discussion
•  Suggest improvements in the way data is shown
•  Comment on general logic and on justification of interpretations
and conclusions
•  Comment on the number of figures, and tables
•  Write concisely and precisely which changes you recommend
•  List separately suggested changes in style, grammar and other
small changes
•  Suggest additional experiments or analyses
•  Make clear the need for changes/updates
•  Ask yourself whether the manuscript should be published at all
 13

Checklist for reviewing a paper:

Conclusions
•  Comment on importance, validity and generality of conclusions
•  Request toning down of unjustified claims and generalizations
•  Request removal of redundancies and summaries
•  The abstract, not the conclusion, summarizes the study
References, tables and figures
•  Check accuracy, number and citation appropriateness
•  Comment on any footnotes
•  Comment on quality and readability of figures
•  Assess completeness of legends, axis labels, and figure captions
•  Check presentation consistency
•  Comment on need for color in figures
 14

Comments for the editor:

•  Provide an overview of paper objective
•  Comment on novelty and significance
•  Recommend whether the manuscript is suitable for
publication
1.  Accept in Present Form
2.  Accept with Optional Revisions
3.  Conditionally Accept pending Revision
4.  Reconsider after Major Revision
5.  Reconsider after Language Editing
6.  Reject - Outside Scope
7.  Reject - Not Sufficiently Significant
8.  Reject without Allowing Revision
9.  Reject – Revision Unsatisfactory
 15

Comments for the editor:

•  Make sure that your comments to the editor are
consistent with your comments to the author
•  Make sure that you comments to the author are
consistent with one of the nine publishing
recommendations (accept, conditionally accept, etc.).
•  Confidential comments will not be disclosed to the
author(s)
•  Your contribution of valuable time and energy is much
appreciated by the editors and authors, as well as the
readers of UMB!
 16

Do’s
•  Do read the Journal Scope and Guide for
Authors
•  Do flag the lack of IACUC approval for animal
research
•  Do flag the lack of IRB approval/informed
consent for human research
•  Do comment on the quality of the figures
•  Do point out missing (significant) references,
particularly to UMB published papers
•  Do proofread your review
•  Do communicate with the editorial office if you
cannot meet the deadline after you accepted an
invitation to review
 17

Don’ts
•  Don’t share a manuscript under review
with other individuals
•  Don’t simply fill out the reviewer
questions and skip providing specific
comments for the authors or comments
to the editor
•  Don’t require authors to cite your work
unless it is appropriate to do so
•  Don’t delay the review process by
missing the deadline
 18

Why should I submit my paper to

UMB?
•  UMB is the official journal of the World
Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
•  UMB’s Editorial Advisory Board has 73
members who serve as primary reviewers
•  UMB has a reviewer database of > 2000
worldwide
•  UMB has a 2018 impact factor of 2.205
•  UMB publishes about 300 papers (2806 pages)/
year
•  UMB’s 2018 acceptance rate was ~ 32%
 19

How do I submit my paper to UMB?

•  Go to http://ees.elsevier.com/umb
•  Register as an author
•  On Home page: Read Guide for Authors
•  http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/525490/authorinstructions

•  Go to Main Menu:“Submit New Manuscript”

•  Follow the step-by-step instructions
•  Attach your files
•  View your submission
•  Approve your submission (very important)
 20

What happens after I submit?

• The Managing Editor reviews your submission for
formatting/compliance issues.
•  Once approved, it is forwarded to the Editor-In-Chief
and assigned a manuscript number.
•  The Editor-In-Chief then accepts responsibility for
handling the reviews or delegates to the appropriate
Associate Editor.
•  At least two Reviewers are invited.
•  Reviewers submit their recommendations.
•  You receive a decision letter (accept/reject/revise)
•  You submit your revision and process begins again.
https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/99382/U_Pub_Process_brochure_web_042115.pdf 21
https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/tutorials-and-resources/how-to-review-manuscripts 22