 |
| About Bioline | All Journals | Testimonials | Membership | News |
|
||||||
|
||||||
African Journal. Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicines Vol. 2, Num. 3, 2005, pp. 345-354 Workshop Report FAME GUIDELINES AND TOOLS FOR JOURNAL EDITORS Code Number: tc05037 How were these documents developed? These documents were developed by participants at the FAME meeting in Entebbe, Uganda, 18-21 April 2005. FAME acknowledges the support of INASP and WHO for funding this meeting, and Liz Wager (Sideview, UK) who acted as facilitator. Who are these documents for? These documents are designed for editors of peer-reviewed medical journals, in particular FAME members. How should the documents be used? The aims and traditions of journals vary greatly, so it is often inappropriate to aim for standardization. Editors should therefore use these documents flexibly, as templates to be adapted for their individual journals, or as a resource for improving existing documents or procedures. For example, the tool for selecting reviewers provides a scoring system, but we have not suggested a minimum score or threshold for identifying reviewers. Similarly, the letter suggested in the guidelines on getting reviewers to deliver reports on time is designed to be adapted to editors’ personal preferred styles and levels of formality. We recognise that many FAME journals already have guidelines for reviewers, therefore this document might be used to review existing guidelines and improve them. The documents are not copyrighted and we encourage editors to copy, adapt and distribute them as they wish. What do the documents cover? There are four documents on the peer-review process: FAME tool for selecting reviewers There is one document on the quality of submissions: FAME guidelines on improving the quality of submissions Who wrote these documents? The documents were developed after discussion by all participants at the Entebbe meeting. Initial drafts were prepared by the following participants: FAME tool for selecting
reviewers FAME guidelines on
increasing the number of reviewers FAME suggestions for
journal guidelines for reviewers FAME guidelines on getting
reviewers’ reports on time FAME guidelines on
improving the quality of submissions Harriet Batuma, Evelyn Bakengesa (both from African Health
Sciences) A. FAME suggestions for journal guidelines for reviewers Entebbe, April 2005 1. Topic: Is the topic relevant for the journal? 2. Title: Does the title reflect the contents of the article? 3. Originality: Is the work original? (If not, please give references) 4. Abstract: To what extent does the abstract reflect aspects of the study: background, objectives, methods, results and conclusions? 5. Introduction / Background: Is the study rationale adequately described? 6. Objectives: Are the study objectives clearly stated? 7. Methodology: (please provide examples and evidence for your response, do not simply answer yes or no) 7.1 To what extent is the study design appropriate for the objectives? 7.2 Is the sample size appropriate and adequately justified? 7.3 Is the sampling technique appropriate and adequately described? 7.4 How well are the methods and instruments of data collection described? 7.5 How well are techniques to minimize bias/errors documented? Ethical Consideration: Are issues
related to ethics adequately described? Analysis and results: 9.1 Are the methods of data analysis appropriate? 9.2 Is statistical significance well documented (e.g. as confidence intervals or P-value)? 9.3 Are the findings presented logically with appropriate displays and explanations?
10.1 How well are the key findings stated? 10.2 To what extent have differences or similarities with other studies been discussed and reasons for these given? 10.3 Are the implications of these findings clearly articulated?
Do the results justify the conclusion(s)?
12.1 Are they appropriate and relevant? Writing: Is the paper clearly written? 13.1 Are there problems with the grammar / spelling /
language? Recommendations Please select one of the following recommendations:
Do you want your name revealed to the author? Yes / No Please state any relevant competing interests Please use a separate sheet to provide specific suggestions to improve the manuscript B. FAME tool for selecting reviewers Entebbe, April 2005 Explanatory note This tool was developed to help journals select suitable reviewers. However, since selection criteria vary between journals, no minimum qualifying score is suggested. Editors should apply the tool flexibly, bearing in mind that several studies have shown that younger (therefore less well qualified or experienced) researchers often produce the best reviews. We also recommend that journals monitor reviewer performance and, once a review has been produced, information on the quality and timeliness of the review(s) should be added to the database/ file. In most cases, this form will be completed from information extracted from the reviewer’s CV, rather than directly by the reviewer. We suggest, when approaching a potential reviewer, the editor should request the CV plus information about which journals the person has reviewed for (since this may not be on the CV). C. FAME tool for selecting reviewers Name ________________________________________________________________ Date of birth___________________________________________________________ Institution ____________________________________________________________ Address______________________________________________________________ Phone _______________________________ Mobile _________________ Fax _______________________________ Email _______________________________ Web _______________________ Education/ Specialisation/ Training
Publications in peer-reviewed journals within the last 5 years
Reviewer experience
D. FAME guidelines on increasing the number of reviewers Entebbe, April 2005 There are several reasons why journals may have insufficient reviewers on their database. These include: 1. Poor development of reviewers at local institutions due to: a. Rote learning and poor analytical
skills from early education that carries through undergraduate and postgraduate
education 2. Few opportunities to recruit reviewers from local institutions: a. Poor research fellows and progression of research fellows 3. Journal databases problems: a. Small or incomplete databases 4. Lack of incentives for reviewers: a. No recognition by institutions
and/or journal Strategies for increasing reviewer numbers 1. Journal recognition of reviewers Actions to increase reviewer recruitment / retention (or reduce reviewer refusals) 1. Journal recognition b.Yearly listing of reviewers in journal
2. Liaison with institutions / parent organization (e.g. journal’s editorial base, national medical associations)
i. Number of reviewers
E. FAME guidelines on getting reviewers’ reports on time Entebbe, April 2005 The quality of a journal depends, in part, on the performance of its reviewers. Reviewers may fail to deliver reports for a number of reasons. The reviewer: a is
too busy to respond in time The following actions may help: 1 sending
reviewer reminders (preferably by both e-mail and hard copy) The letter to request review should contain the following elements:
Deadlines and reminders Template letter / e-mail which could be adapted for individual journal use MS title / MS ref number / date MS sent to reviewer Reviewer recruitment 1 General invitation to act as reviewer e.g.: e-mail, phone call, letter, fax 2 If
reviewer agrees, editor requests CV showing area of specialistion and interest,
list of publications, qualifications 3 Journal applies its own selection criteria to decide whether or not to use this reviewer 4 Editor records reviewer details on file/database Reviewer performance evaluation 1 Measuring timeliness/promptness of response e.g. met deadline / missed deadline 2 Quality of review e.g. whether reviewer justified comments whether reviewer appreciates journal requirements if journal supplies a checklist, has the reviewer followed this? F. FAME guidelines on improving the quality of submissions Entebbe, April 2005 Journal editors might consider the following options to raise the standard of submissions. 1 Mentoring Definition A process by which an experienced individual helps a less experienced person to acquire scientific writing / editing skills. Basic assumptions 1) Trainee is already admitted to research institution (for new authors) 2) Mentor is: a) qualified b) active in writing / publishing / editing c) available, accessible and willing d) positive towards mentoring Content 1) Familiarization with journal article structure / format 2) Critical analysis of materials (e.g. other articles in journal) 3) Writing exercises Source of mentors and trainees 1) Faculties/research institutions 2) Professional associations (e.g. national medical associations) Mentor rewards Journals should consider a scheme for rewarding mentors (e.g. subscription subsidies, processing fee subsidies, recognition in journal, invitation to join editorial board). Implementation 1) Editors / editorial boards set up mentoring
by
linking mentors to inexperienced (unpublished) authors or those whose
manuscripts do not meet journal standards but could be improved (e.g. low
quality presentation rather than poor underlying research) 2 Training in scientific writing 1) Journals or organization such as FAME could offer ‘train the trainer’ workshops and training material (e.g. CD / slide set) to develop individuals who, in turn, train other trainers or writers
2) Training objectives
Participants at the FAME workshop, Entebbe, Uganda18-21 April 2005 (Figure 1) A photo album to the Entebbe workshop can be found at website: http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/entebbe/default.htm More information on FAME can be found at: http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/publications/fame_entebbe.htm © Copyright 2005 -African. Journal. Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicines |
