Jump to content

Δημοσιεύσεις σε Ελληνικά περιοδικά


finally

Recommended Posts

Παραθέτω μία τυπική "φόρμα" που δίνει ένα συγκεκριμένο περιοδικό (και παρεπιπτόντως ένα από τα καλύτερα) στους reviewers του για να συμπληρώσουμε. Δεν σημαίνει ότι επειδή είναι περιοδικό ορθοπαιδικής, οι ίδιες αρχές δεν ισχύουν για τις υπόλοιπες ειδικότητες. Αυτό, για να δει κανείς ΠΩΣ ακριβώς αξιολογείται κάποιο paper, και άρα τι χρειάζεται να προσέχει κανείς όταν γράφει τα επιμέρους sections ενός άρθρου. Νομίζω, ότι αυτό σε συνδυασμό και με το παραπάνω άρθρο του Μάνσκε που παρέθεσα παραπάνω και το οποίο προσωπικά πάντοτε έχω υπ'όψη μου όταν κάνω ένα review, είναι αρκετά κατατοπιστικά και θα βοηθήσουν αυτούς που ξεκινούν τώρα να γράφουν.

Please use the online review form that follows and FILL IT IN COMPLETELY.


	20-Point(Continuous)Scale (Use this scale to score each of the five criteria listed below.)

	0-3	Fails by a large amount

	4-7	Fails by a moderate amount

	8-11   Fails by a small amount

	12-15 Succeeds by a small amount

	16-19 Succeeds by a moderate amount

	20	  Succeeds by a large amount

	ΝΑ	  Not applicable

	DK	  Do not know


	To what extent does this paper meet each criterion below? (Use the scale given above to score *each* criterion.)


	1.  Scientific Merit  .  .   .   .   .   .   .	_______

	2.  Originality   .   .  .   .   .   .   .   .	_______

	3.  Clinical Usefulness  .   .   .   .   .   .	_______

	4.  Level of Interest	.   .   .   .   .   .	_______

	5.  Validity of Conclusions  .   .   .   .   .	_______

	Add the 5 scores above to calculate an Overall Score (0 - 100 points)   .   .   .   .	_______

	Please enter this Overall Score in the "Manuscript Rating" field at the online Reviewer Recommendation.

	Fast-track this article for publication?  ___ (If yes, "X" the blank space.) 


	***CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS*** - Please complete this section. Your comments summarizing the basis of your editorial decision are extremely important to the Editors.

	//////// END OF CONFIDENTIAL SCORING AND COMMENTS. ////////


	As a reminder, please use the 11-item format you see below to structure your (blinded) comments to be sent--by the Editorial Office--to the author.


	When you make suggestions or observations about the manuscript, always refer to specific page and line numbers found in the text.


	1. INTRODUCTION (Does it create interest, often by identifying a controversy?  Is the subject worthy of study?  Is the background summary by the author both authoritative and limited in scope?  Does the Introduction end with a clearly stated purpose and hypothesis?)


	2. METHODS (Here the authors should describe the "How" [not the "why"].  Is the research design suitable?  Are the methods well-described enough to be evaluated?  Do the Methods explain how the study addresses the hypothesis?  Do the Methods describe the primary outcomes measure, the inclusion/exclusion criteria, randomization, and statistical analysis?  Are the Methods adequate to answer the central question being studied?)


	3. RESULTS (Are they organized like the Methods section?  Are the data new or deserving of replication?  Do the numbers add up?  Are the data understandable and do they cover all the points introduced in the Methods?  Do the Results agree with all tables and figures?)


	4. DISCUSSION (Here do the authors compare their Results with previous studies?  Are sources of systematic & random introduction of bias addressed?  Does the Discussion address the meaning of the data?  Does the Discussion end by describing the weaknesses of the present study?)


	5. CONCLUSIONS (Are they drawn from the Results?  That is, are the Conclusions supported by data from the study?  Or, instead, do the authors make statements that lie beyond the scope of the study?  Do the Conclusions address what the authors believed they would find before the study began [which is the Hypothesis of the paper]?)


	6. ABSTRACT (Does it sum up the core of the study, which is vital to future researchers?  Is the abstract structured like this: Purpose, Methods, Results, Conclusions, Level of Evidence or Clinical Relevance, Key Words?)


	7. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE (Is the Level of Evidence that the author claims correct? Consider not only the numerical level but the type of study and description according to the Level of Evidence table found in the Journal's Instructions to Authors. If not, suggest the change you believe should be made.  Laboratory studies must include a statement of Clinical Relevance instead of Level of Evidence.)


	8. TITLE (Is it descriptive of the central message of the study?  Lucid?  Straightforward?  Succinct instead of verbose?  And, perhaps most critical, will the title tell future researchers what the study actually investigates?)


	9. FIGURES (Do they clarify *essential* points of the study?  Are the arthroscopic views labeled?  Are the abbreviations defined?  And, most critically, does the legend explain the image, telling the average reader what to see here and to remember later?) 


	10. REFERENCES (Are the most important previous studies cited [think quality, not quantity]?  Do the authors point out similarities and differences between their data and those described in previous studies?  Is each reference pertinent to and in agreement with the authors' statement that is being supported by this reference?)


	11. TABLES (Is each table a concise summary of data. allowing the authors to cut down on wordiness in the text?  Does each table avoid repeating material found in the text?  Is each table structured appropriately?  Are the columns and rows logical?  Do the authors use N, Mean, and SD whenever suitable in each table?)


	//////////////// END OF ONLINE SCORE SHEET. ////////////////

	PLEASE CUT-AND-PASTE THE 10 ITEMS ABOVE INTO THE 'BLIND COMMENTS TO AUTHOR' WINDOW ABOVE. THE EDITORIAL OFFICE WILL SEND YOUR SUMMARY (BLINDED) TO THE AUTHOR OF THIS MANUSCRIPT.

Edited by Ortho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Μια απορία που την έχω εδώ και καιρό...

Μεγαλύτερη αξία έχει ο συνολικός αριθμός των δημοσιεύσεων του καθενός ή η θέση στην οποία βρίσκεται σε καθεμία από αυτές?

Για παράδειγμα είναι ισχυρότερο ένα βιογραφικό με 3 δημοσιεύσεις σε διεθνή περιοδικά όπου κάποιος είναι 1ο - 2ο όνομα ή με 7 δημοσιεύσεις όπου καποιος είναι 4ο - 5ο όνομα?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.