HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER FOR EUROPEAN UROLOGY

1. HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER FOR EUROPEAN UROLOGY Stephen A. Boorjian, MD, FACS Professor of Urology Director, Urologic Oncology Fellowship Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN

2. DISCLOSURES • Financial: none • Intellectual: “this is how I do it” • Many approaches can be successful

3. OUTLINE FOR TALK • Section-by-section manuscript review tips • Importance of serving as a manuscript reviewer • Conclusions

4. HOW TO REVIEW A MANUSCRIPT FOR EUROPEAN UROLOGY

5. POINTS TO CONSIDER DURING REVIEW • Originality of question/topic • “Robustness” of dataset • Appropriate methodology • Importance of findings • Do the present data add in a meaningful and significant way to the existing literature on the topic?

6. MANUSCRIPT TITLE • Does the title accurately represent the data presented? • Does the title sufficiently represent the data presented • “Catch the eye” of the casual reader

7. ABSTRACT • Very important – often only part of manuscript read • Can it be read as a stand-along representation of manuscript? • Critical methodology/data included • Conclusions supported by data provided • Does it follow the EU guidelines?

8. INTRODUCTION • Brief background to topic, citing relevant literature • Key – does the Introduction “sell” the importance of the topic/need for the study? • Are the objective(s) of the study clearly stated?

9. METHODS • Level of detail provided • i.e. explain reasoning for select patients being excluded from study/provide demonstration that not biasing analyses in remaining cohort • Critical – are the methods chosen appropriate to address the question of interest? • Validated instrument for QoL assessment • i.e. Cox model vs logistic regression analysis

10. METHODS: REPORTING GUIDELINES • Used to standardize reporting of clinical studies • Enhance research quality • Enhance transparency • CONSORT (diagram) – for RCT • PRISMA – for systematic reviews + meta-analysis • EQUATOR website http://www.equator-network.org/

11. RESULTS • KEY SECTION OF MANUSCRIPT • “Non-fixable” with revisions • (For clinical studies): • Size of dataset (power of analyses) • Duration of follow-up for endpoint of interest and disease state being studied • 2 years ok to report mortality in mRCC • 2 years not ok for mortality in localized PCa

12. RESULTS • Are relevant demographic details regarding study population and treatment provided? • Are the outcome measures reported appropriate and sufficient? • i.e. text should not present p values only, but raw numbers (%) provided as well • Do the reported findings make sense? • RFS, CSS, OS congruous?

13. REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT TABLES • “Readability” • Too much/too little data provided to easily read • Are all tables referenced in text? • Do tables/text present duplicate data? Are conflicting data presented? • Do the numbers in the table add-up?

14. REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT TABLES • Sequence/completeness of tables • Demographic data • Univariate comparisons • Multivariate models • HR, 95% CI, p values provided

15. REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT FIGURES • Are all the figures included necessary? • No duplication • Is data presentation clear and not mis-labeled? • Appropriate axis/scales on graphs • Can figures be read “stand-alone” (without accompanying text)? • For Kaplan-Meier curve: • p values provided • Number of patients at risk at various timepoints provided

16. DISCUSSION SECTION • Orderly flow • Summarize results • Contextualize results = KEY! • In light of existing literature on the topic • Explain discrepancies in findings from prior similar series • Methodology, study population • Offer why present study = unique

17. DISCUSSION SECTION • Paragraph detailing study limitations • Conclusions (in this section or as stand-alone section) • Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? • Does the manuscript leave you with a message regarding the importance of the study?

18. REFERENCES: A WINDOW TO THE AUTHORS • Reflects authors’ familiarity with subject matter • Marker of well-done paper • I often read after abstract and before manuscript • Review paper – absolutely critical (i.e. = “data”) • Comprehensive + contemporary • Most recent series if multiple from one center • Will be reference basis for readers

19. REFERENCES:A WINDOW TO THE AUTHORS • Original (non-review) paper – still essential • Inclusive of relevant series • Largest • Contemporary • Best datasets • Look at quality of journals cited – JAMA, JCO, Eur Urol • Avoid over self-citation • But – appropriate referencing of one’s prior work may reflect expertise in subject area

20. MISCELLANEOUS REVIEW COMMENTS • Does the manuscript follow EU guidelines? • Length of abstract/manuscript • Number/format for references • Inclusion of all required sections (Take Home Message) • Is the paper clearly formatted for another journal?!!! • Cover letter addressed to another editor! • Writing style/presentation • If you found it hard to understand/read, so will target audience

21. ORGANIZING YOUR REVIEW FOR SUBMISSION: COMMENTS TO AUTHORS • 2-3 sentence summary of manuscript/critical findings • Major concerns/suggested changes • Project concept, study design, study population • Methodologic/statistical concerns • Minor concerns • References • Modifications to tables/figures • Formatting

22. ORGANIZING YOUR REVIEW FOR SUBMISSION: COMMENTS TO EDITOR • Brief summary of decision recommended and key points to support • Originality of question • “Robustness” of dataset • Appropriate methodology • Importance of findings • Do the present data add in a meaningful and significant way to the existing literature on the topic?

23. HOW TO GET BETTER AT MANUSCRIPT REVIEWS • Practice, practice, practice • Track disposition of manuscripts you review • Read other reviewers’ comments

24. ARE REVIEWERS EVER WRONG? • Eur Urol process makes effort for consensus, but message/novelty of work may be missed • Authors may appeal a decision • Submit (timely) letter to journal • Well-reasoned explanation of why author feels reviewers’ assessment incorrect • May (may not) lead to manuscript being sent for re-review to garner additional opinions

25. WHY IS MANUSCRIPT REVIEWING IMPORTANT TO DO FOR YOU?

26. BENEFITS OF SERVING AS A REVIEWER I: PERSONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT • Become more facile at critical review • Become a better author • Types of analysis • Presentation of data • Reviewing a manuscript ≈ writing a good manuscript • Stay abreast of current literature • PubMed topic as part of review

27. BENEFITS OF SERVING AS A REVIEWER II: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT • Critical part of important process • Currency of academics = peer-reviewed publications • Opportunity for academic recognition • Best Reviewer, Editorial Board positions • Establishment of contacts • Editors get to “know the name” • Letters for academic promotion

28. BENEFITS OF SERVING AS A REVIEWER III • FUN! • Opportunity for “first-look” at new/exciting data • Opportunity to improve quality of publications • Diversion from other clinical/academic responsibilities

29. CONCLUSIONS • Manuscript review should address: • Originality of question • “Robustness” of dataset • Appropriate methodology • Importance of findings • Personal + professional benefits to reviewing • Enjoy the process – “academic hobby”

30. THANK YOU Questions?