Reviewer Checklist  >  For Authors and Reviewers  >  Reviewer Checklist



I. Reviewer Template

We recommend that reviewers use this template to focus their reviews. The template below gives you up to 3 comments for each subtitle, but they are subject to change at the discretion of the reviewer. Items to be checked for each subsection are described to refer.

Manuscript number and title _______________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

Summary (one or two short paragraphs)

Strengths (up to 3 points)

1.

2.

3.

Weaknesses (up to 3 points)

1.

2.

3.

Specific comments

Title

1.

Abstract

2.

3.

4.

Purpose clearly stated and the same as at the end of Introduction in the text?
Prospective or retrospective study?
Same data/information as in the text?
Specific data in results section with P values?
Conclusion based on the data and same as at the end of Discussion in the text?

Introduction

5.

6.

7.

Logical case for why study was conducted?
Adequate references avoiding excessive review of literature?
Clear hypothesis and purpose of study at the end of Introduction?

Materials and Methods

8.

9.

10.

Human studies - IRB approval stated in the first paragraph with the name of institution blinded?
Animal studies - Approval of Institutional animal care committee in the first paragraph?
When study was done? (begin date/end date)
Patient group fully defined? (age, sex, inclusion & exclusion criteria, consecutive or random selection, drop out)
Logical presentation of total participants and logical division into groups with rationale for division?
Clear description of techniques and procedures performed?
Number, training, and expertise of persons executing/reading the index tests or reviewing the images?
Were readers appropriately blinded?
Reference standard procedures clearly identified?
Indicate specifically what was evaluated & how evaluations were performed?
Statistical methods clearly defined?
Included all items evaluated for which they present results in the Results section?
No misplaced information belonging to another section?

Results

11.

12.

13.

Consistency between M&M and results, presenting results for all items evaluated in M&M?
Results presented in logical sequence?
Results for statistical evaluations and significance?
Numerators & denominators provided for proportional data such as prevalence, incidence, success/complication rates, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, etc in text and tables?
If tables & figs are used appropriately without redundancy?
No misplaced information belonging in another section?

Discussion

14.

15.

16.

Avoided repetition of results?
Avoided repetition of information already in introduction?
Avoided presentation of extensive review of topic?
Presented comparison of study results with those from previous relevant studies?
Discussion focused and gave important findings in context of existing knowledge?
Discussion of limitations and future work to be performed?
Conclusions directly linked to the purpose and supported by data?
For animal/non-human experimental studies, comments on potential future practical applications included?
No misplaced information belonging in another section?

References

17.

18.

19.

Listed in order of citation in the text?
Format according to guidelines?
No misquotes or wrong citations?
Updated and not omitting important references?

Tables

20.

21.

Not a mere repetition of the text?
Abbreviations explained?
Title provided for each table?
Unified decimal place?
Numbers in tables corresponded to those in the text?

Figures

22.

23.

Adapted to the quality guidelines?
Proper number of figures?
Figure legends clearly state the features with use of present tense?
Suitable labels on figures and all lables mentioned in legend?
Image type, contrast-enhanced/non-contrast, plane given?
Stain and original magnification of histology slides?
Absence of any identifiers of patient or authors?

II. Do’s and Don’ts

1. Use English if there is no relevant comment in the original invitation e-mail.

2. Inform the editor about possible duplicated or fabricated works.

3. Inform the editor about possible biases or conflicts of interest.

4. Do not share any contents of manuscript with anyone.

5. Destroy any printed copies of manuscript after the review.

6. Do not identify yourself in the comments to the authors.

7. Do not try to contact the authors.

8. Do not use insulting statements in the comments to the authors.

9. Do not focus too much on grammar and spelling mistakes.

10. Do not speculate in your comments.

11. Do not encourage authors to provide redundant information.

12. Do not directly indicate Acceptance or Rejection in the comments to the authors.

13. Comments to editor should be different in the separate section from the comments to authors. Let the editor know if the authors need to consult the experts in the statistical processing.

Thank you for reviewing for the ULTRASONOGRAPHY.

endonote style file
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
Editorial Office
A-304 Mapo Trapalace, 53 Mapo-daero, Mapo-gu, Seoul 04158, Korea
TEL : +82-2-763-5627   FAX : +82-2-763-6909   E-mail : office@ultrasound.or.kr
About |  Browse Articles |  Current Issue |  For Authors and Reviewers
Copyright © Korean Society of Ultrasound in Medicine. All rights reserved.                 powerd by m2community
Close layer
prev next