For Reviewers

• Fit with other work in WMJ
• Quality/originality of research topic
• Clarity of research question
• Originality of methods
• Writing style

• Medical editor and WMJ staff select possible reviewers based on information in our volunteer reviewer database
• WMJ staff sends request to reviewers with copy of manuscript, associated figures and due date (3 weeks from request date)
• Reviewers reply to staff regarding availability/willingness to review

• Medical editor makes decision based on reviews
• Letter is sent to corresponding author with anonymous reviewer comments
• Staff sends copy of decision letter and comments to all reviewers for information

• Read abstract
• Look at your schedule and requested due date
• Respond yes or no. If you are unable to review, we need to know so we can ask someone else instead

• Make notes as you read the article
• Note general questions, concerns, positives
• Write review/make recommendations using Peer Track system.

• Maintain a respectful tone (how would you react if you received it?)
• Show evidence that you have read the manuscript; include a short summary of the paper at the beginning
• Comment on all sections of the paper
• Make suggestions for additional content, references, or other arguments

• Judgmental rather than descriptive
• More about the reviewer than the manuscript
• Not objective – reviewer has strong bias or an “axe to grind”
• Insufficient – too short to be useful for editorial decision or feedback to author

• Is the title appropriate?
• Is the information presented useful/important?
• How valid are the conclusions presented in the paper?
• How old and how thorough are the references?
• Is the paper well-written, clear and understandable to the general reader?

• General impressions (positives, concerns, questions [what wasn’t clear])
• Suggestions for improvement
• Specific items noted (List by page, paragraph and line number)

• Your judgment as to whether the manuscript should be accepted, and why (or why not)
• Does it have a legitimate place in the medical literature?
• Do you think it would make a good CME article?
• Additional concerns (eg, duplicate publication; signs of plagiarism)

• Reject
• Revise/resubmit
  • minor revisions required
  • major revisions required
• Accept (Note: it is rare that a manuscript is accepted without at least minor revisions)

After reviewing the all the peer reviewers’ comments, the medical editor sends a first decision letter to the corresponding author with the anonymous reviewers’ comments attached. As a reviewer, you will receive a copy of this letter. At that time, you should:

• Compare your recommendation to the editor’s decision
• Compare your review to those of the other reviewers, noting:
  • tone
  • specific points you caught or missed
  • potential usefulness to authors
• Use this feedback to inform and improve your future reviews

• Sign up online to be a WMJ reviewer (please forward this link to your colleagues) or download and print this form if you wish to sign up via fax or mail.
• Instructions for Authors
• Author Submission Checklist
• Author Disclosure Declaration