title: The art and science of reviewing manuscripts for orthopaedic journals: Part I. Defining the review.
abstract: The peer review process is integral to the functioning of all scientific journals and plays a pivotal role in the publication of new scientific material. Timeliness, freedom from bias, and proper review etiquette are essential for an effective review. Each type of scientific article demands a slightly different reviewing technique. Clinical research articles require that a proper question be asked and that the study methodology allows the question to be answered effectively. All studies dealing with human subjects need to be approved by the Institutional Review Board. Clinical review articles have specific criteria to determine how they should be constructed and when they should be published, whereas basic science research articles should be evaluated for their experimental method as well as the relevance of the conclusions to the data. Finally, case reports have an important place in the scientific literature, but the rationale for publishing any individual case needs to be clearly established.
authors.affiliation: Alvin and Lois Lapidus Cancer Institute, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
authors.forename: Alan M
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Levine
authors.forename: James D
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Heckman
authors.forename: Robert N
authors.initials: RN
authors.lastname: Hensinger
mesh_terms: D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D006801:Humans; D009985:Orthopedics; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000379:methods*; D010506:Periodicals as Topic; D011643:Publishing; D012196:Review Literature as Topic