Editor’s critique of the three sample reviews


Comments on the review of Paper A
"Randomised controlled trial of computer guided self help for panic/phobic disorder: hope for cutting waiting lists?"

Importance

The reviewer does give useful comments on the importance of the research question.

Originality

The reviewer says that this is an original piece of work and part of an ongoing programme of research. There are no references to any other studies, which means that we are left unclear about exactly how original the study is. The fact that Professor Marks enjoys an international reputation isn’t really relevant.

Validity of the study

The reviewer makes several useful comments on the validity of the study. The comments would have been even more useful if they had balanced the strengths and weaknesses of the study.

Presentation

The reviewer makes several useful comments on the presentation of the study.

Ethics

The ethical aspects of the study are not mentioned at all.

Comments on review of paper B
"Peer led asthma education improves quality of life and asthma morbidity in adolescence: a randomised controlled trial."


Importance

The review simply says that the study will be of importance to clinicians, patients, teachers and policy makers. It doesn’t elaborate at all on why this particular study is important. The review would have been more useful if the reviewer could have done so.

Originality

The review simply says that the paper is original. The reviewers does not refer to any studies on peer led education or on education to improve outcomes for patients with asthma. Yet I know that there has been considerable research in both subjects, although it probably is original to use peer led education in adolescent patients with asthma. The review would have been more useful if the reviewer could have provided more information on originality.

Validity of the study

The review makes many useful comments on the validity of the study, and it is particularly strong in detecting errors and discrepancies in the study. The reviewer doesn’t raise the possibility that this many errors might raise serious doubts about the integrity of the study. This point might usefully have been discussed.

Presentation

The review makes useful comments on the presentation of the study, particularly again in relation to the many errors.

Ethics

The review makes no mention of the ethical aspects of the study and yet might usefully have done so.

Importance

The review says nothing about the importance of the study.

Originality

The review says nothing on the originality of the study.

Validity of the study

The review does make some comments on the validity of the study, but some important points are mixed in with many inconsequential ones – reducing the value of the opinion.

Presentation

The reviewer makes many comments on the presentation, but most are of very limited value. They are points that would easily be addressed by technical editing.

Ethics

The reviewer makes no mention of the ethical aspects of the study