A Guide for the Reviewers (Turkish Journal of Pediatrics)

We thank you for accepting reviewing this manuscript for the Turkish Journal of Pediatrics. We have prepared this document in order to support you during the peer-review process and also for when reviewing a revised manuscript.

During the review process, we would appreciate it if you are able to identify the major strengths and weaknesses of the study; suggests changes to improve the study or the presentation of the results; and provides helpful comments to the Editor, which may be given separately from the review to the authors.

We would also appreciate if you comment on each section as given below.

*** If you have any conflict of interest, please decline the invitation.

These are possible questions the reviewer may ask themselves while reviewing

Title

• Is it an accurate reflection of the study?
• Is the length appropriate?
• Have authors used abbreviations which may make understanding the title difficult?

Abstract:

• Does it give you a reasonable summary of what was done?
• If a quantitative study, does it contain data?
• Does it follow the correct format (which should be structured for our journal)?

Introduction:

• Is the background information introduced?
• Does it adequately justify why the study was done?
• Is the rationale for the study clearly stated?
• Is the hypothesis clearly stated?

Methods:

• Are all methods used for data collection adequately presented and are they appropriate?
• Are the methods reproducible?
• Are there enough numbers of participants to draw a clear conclusion and was this calculated appropriately?
• Are appropriate controls used?
• Are the statistics appropriate/adequate?
• Was there appropriate IRB/ethics committee review?
• If human subjects were involved, was informed consent obtained?

Results:

• Are the data adequately presented, is everything stated in the methods reported?
• Are any data presented that were not mentioned in the methods?
• Do the numbers in the tables add up and do they match what is in the text?
• Is there unnecessary duplication between the text and tables/ figures?
• Are the tables and figures adequate and/or needed?
• Are tables/figures labelled correctly?

Discussion:

• Is the opening paragraph appropriate?
• Is there adequate discussion of the relevant literature in the light of their results?
• Is there inappropriate speculation?
• Are the limitations acknowledged?
• Is a conclusion paragraph given?

Overall evaluation

• Is the topic related to the scope of the journal?
• Is the topic timely and significant?
• Is the English language of the manuscript at an acceptable level?
• Are the references up to date?
• You can also support your points with literature citations if appropriate.
• Referring to the correct page and line number and numbering your comments will help the author.
• Please, do not tell the authors your “final recommendation/decision” but can send this to the editor.

Reviewing a revised manuscript

• Were the authors responsive to your suggestions?
• Are the revisions acceptable?
• Did the authors explain why a suggestion was not acted upon?
• It may be necessary to request the same revision if something important was not addressed.
• You do not need to address the comments of other reviewers.