As reviewer you will assess papers on different aspects, for example suitability for RAMS, and provide papers with remarks to help authors improve their manuscript. Reviewers write a review report in accordance with the guidelines for reviewers within two weeks after receiving a paper. Please be as concise and detailed as possible. The reviewer will advise the editor accept a paper with or without revisions or to reject the paper. After the editor receives the review reports from all reviewers, he or she will write an editorial report with the final decision. This is then sent to the corresponding author.
A picture of the review process from submission to publication: (The review process in PDF can be found here.)
In the masterclasses, writing a review report is practiced. Furthermore, you will receive feedback from the editor after your first few real review reports to to improve your reviewing skills.
Different checklists can be used to systematically judge an article:
– Systematic review: PRISMA, Dutch Cochrance Center, Medical library website on systematic reviews
– Observational studies: Newcastle – Ottawa quality assessment scale, STROBE
– Diagnostic studies: QUADAS rating scale
– Intervention studies: Cochrane risk of bias tool
Guide for Reviewers
Guide for Reviewers – Systematic Review
If there are any questions on thereview process or a specific review, please direct them to firstname.lastname@example.org.