Shah Faaiz Ali, Ali Mian Amjad, Nazar Zahid, Rasheed Haroon Ur
Dr. Faaiz Ali Shah, FCPS. Department of Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Lady Reading Hospital Peshawar KP, Pakistan.
Dr. Mian Amjad Ali, PhD. Department of Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Lady Reading Hospital Peshawar KP, Pakistan.
Pak J Med Sci. 2019 Jul-Aug;35(4):1013-1017. doi: 10.12669/pjms.35.4.713.
To analyze the contents and format of peer review proforma of Medical journals of Pakistan.
This descriptive study was conducted in the Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Lady reading Hospital Peshawar Pakistan from 3 August 2018 to 9 February 2019.An email was sent to the chief editors of all the medical journals listed on the official website (www.pmdc.org.pk) of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC).They were requested to send peer review proformas of their journals. The received proformas were analyzed for major contents and format or style. The proforma had a structured format when each portion of the manuscript i.e, title, abstract, key words, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion and references were individually sectioned for evaluation. Whereas in the unstructured proformas the reviewer was asked to assess the manuscript as a whole.
We received 41 proformas via emails. Majority (82.9%) of the proformas were structured while 17% were unstructured. A scoring or rating system for the manuscript was present in 31.7% of the proformas while 43.9% of the proformas were without any scoring system. Guidelines for the peer reviewers were given in 58.5% of the proformas. The peer review policy (closed or open) was mentioned in only 7.3%.About 9.7% of the proformas asked the reviewers to disclose conflict of interests.
A spectrum of contents and format of peer review proformas of medical journals were observed. We found structured peer review proforma with a scoring scale comprehensive and more appropriate for peer review.
分析巴基斯坦医学期刊同行评议表格的内容和格式。
这项描述性研究于2018年8月3日至2019年2月9日在巴基斯坦白沙瓦女子阅读医院骨科与创伤科进行。向巴基斯坦医学和牙科委员会(PM&DC)官方网站(www.pmdc.org.pk)上列出的所有医学期刊的主编发送了电子邮件。要求他们发送各自期刊的同行评议表格。对接收到的表格的主要内容、格式或样式进行分析。当稿件的每个部分,即标题、摘要、关键词、方法、结果、讨论、结论和参考文献分别进行评估时,该表格具有结构化格式。而在非结构化表格中,要求审稿人对稿件进行整体评估。
我们通过电子邮件收到了41份表格。大多数(82.9%)表格是结构化的,而17%是非结构化的。31.7%的表格中有稿件评分或评级系统,而43.9%的表格没有任何评分系统。58.5%的表格给出了同行评审指南。仅7.3%的表格提到了同行评审政策(封闭或开放)。约9.7%的表格要求审稿人披露利益冲突。
观察到医学期刊同行评议表格的内容和格式多种多样。我们发现带有评分量表的结构化同行评议表格全面且更适合同行评审。