Points to Consider When Reviewing Articles

The following contains detailed descriptions as to what should be included in each particular type of article as well as points that Reviewers should keep in mind when specifically reviewing each type of article.

YJBM will ask Reviewers to Peer Review the following types of submissions:

Download PDF

Frequently Asked Questions

These manuscripts should present well-rounded studies reporting innovative advances that further knowledge about a topic of importance to the fields of biology or medicine. The conclusions of the Original Research Article should clearly be supported by the results. These can be submitted as either a full-length article (no more than 6,000 words, 8 figures, and 4 tables) or a brief communication (no more than 2,500 words, 3 figures, and 2 tables). Original Research Articles contain five sections: abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion.

Reviewers should consider the following questions:

• What is the overall aim of the research being presented? Is this clearly stated?
• Have the Authors clearly stated what they have identified in their research?
• Are the aims of the manuscript and the results of the data clearly and concisely stated in the abstract?
• Does the introduction provide sufficient background information to enable readers to better understand the problem being identified by the Authors?
• Have the Authors provided sufficient evidence for the claims they are making? If not, what further experiments or data needs to be included?
• Are similar claims published elsewhere? Have the Authors acknowledged these other publications? Have the Authors made it clear how the data presented in the Author’s manuscript is different or builds upon previously published data?
• Is the data presented of high quality and has it been analyzed correctly? If the analysis is incorrect, what should the Authors do to correct this?
• Do all the figures and tables help the reader better understand the manuscript? If not, which figures or tables should be removed and should anything be presented in their place?
• Is the methodology used presented in a clear and concise manner so that someone else can repeat the same experiments? If not, what further information needs to be provided?
• Do the conclusions match the data being presented?
• Have the Authors discussed the implications of their research in the discussion? Have they presented a balanced survey of the literature and information so their data is put into context?
• Is the manuscript accessible to readers who are not familiar with the topic? If not, what further information should the Authors include to improve the accessibility of their manuscript?
• Are all abbreviations used explained? Does the author use standard scientific abbreviations?

Case reports describe an unusual disease presentation, a new treatment, an unexpected drug interaction, a new diagnostic method, or a difficult diagnosis. Case reports should include relevant positive and negative findings from history, examination and investigation, and can include clinical photographs. Additionally, the Author must make it clear what the case adds to the field of medicine and include an up-to-date review of all previous cases. These articles should be no more than 5,000 words, with no more than 6 figures and 3 tables. Case Reports contain five sections: abstract; introduction; case presentation that includes clinical presentation, observations, test results, and accompanying figures; discussion; and conclusions.

Reviewers should consider the following questions:

• Does the abstract clearly and concisely state the aim of the case report, the findings of the report, and its implications?
• Does the introduction provide enough details for readers who are not familiar with a particular disease/treatment/drug/diagnostic method to make the report accessible to them?
• Does the manuscript clearly state what the case presentation is and what was observed so that someone can use this description to identify similar symptoms or presentations in another patient?
• Are the figures and tables presented clearly explained and annotated? Do they provide useful information to the reader or can specific figures/tables be omitted and/or replaced by another figure/table?
• Are the data presented accurately analyzed and reported in the text? If not, how can the Author improve on this?
• Do the conclusions match the data presented?
• Does the discussion include information of similar case reports and how this current report will help with treatment of a disease/presentation/use of a particular drug?

Reviews provide a reasoned survey and examination of a particular subject of research in biology or medicine. These can be submitted as a mini-review (less than 2,500 words, 3 figures, and 1 table) or a long review (no more than 6,000 words, 6 figures, and 3 tables). They should include critical assessment of the works cited, explanations of conflicts in the literature, and analysis of the field. The conclusion must discuss in detail the limitations of current knowledge, future directions to be pursued in research, and the overall importance of the topic in medicine or biology. Reviews contain four sections: abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings), and conclusions and outlook.

Reviewers should consider the following questions:

• Is the review accessible to readers of YJBM who are not familiar with the topic presented?
• Does the abstract accurately summarize the contents of the review?
• Does the introduction clearly state what the focus of the review will be?
• Are the facts reported in the review accurate?
• Does the Author use the most recent literature available to put together this review?
• Is the review split up under relevant subheadings to make it easier for the readers to access the article?
• Does the Author provide balanced viewpoints on a specific topic if there is debate over the topic in the literature?
• Are the figures or tables included relevant to the review and enable the readers to better understand the manuscript? Are there further figures/tables that could be included?
• Do the conclusions and outlooks outline where further research can be done on the topic?

Perspectives provide a personal view on medical or biomedical topics in a clear narrative voice. Articles can relate personal experiences, historical perspective, or profile people or topics important to medicine and biology. Long perspectives should be no more than 6,000 words and contain no more than 2 tables. Brief opinion pieces should be no more than 2,500 words and contain no more than 2 tables. Perspectives contain four sections: abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings), and conclusions and outlook.

Reviewers should consider the following questions:

• Does the abstract accurately and concisely summarize the main points provided in the manuscript?
• Does the introduction provide enough information so that the reader can understand the article if he or she were not familiar with the topic?
• Are there specific areas in which the Author can provide more detail to help the reader better understand the manuscript? Or are there places where the author has provided too much detail that detracts from the main point?
• If necessary, does the Author divide the article into specific topics to help the reader better access the article? If not, how should the Author break up the article under specific topics?
• Do the conclusions follow from the information provided by the Author?
• Does the Author reflect and provide lessons learned from a specific personal experience/historical event/work of a specific person?

Analyses provide an in-depth prospective and informed analysis of a policy, major advance, or historical description of a topic related to biology or medicine. These articles should be no more than 6,000 words with no more than 3 figures and 1 table. Analyses contain four sections: abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings), and conclusions and outlook.

Reviewers should consider the following questions:

• Does the abstract accurately summarize the contents of the manuscript?
• Does the introduction provide enough information if the readers are not familiar with the topic being addressed?
• Are there specific areas in which the Author can provide more detail to help the reader better understand the manuscript? Or are there places where the Author has provided too much detail that detracts from the main point?
• Does the Author provide balanced viewpoints on a specific topic if there is debate over the topic in the literature?
• If necessary, does the Author divide the article into specific topics to help the reader better access the article? If not, how should the Author break up the article under specific topics?
• Do the conclusions follow from the information provided by the Author?

Profiles describe a notable person in the fields of science or medicine. These articles should contextualize the individual’s contributions to the field at large as well as provide some personal and historical background on the person being described. More specifically, this should be done by describing what was known at the time of the individual’s discovery/contribution and how that finding contributes to the field as it stands today. These pieces should be no more than 5,000 words, with up to 6 figures, and 3 tables. The article should include the following: abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings), and conclusions.

Reviewers should consider the following questions:

• Does the abstract accurately summarize the contents of the manuscript?
• Does the Author provide information about the person of interest’s background, i.e., where they are from, where they were educated, etc.?
• Does the Author indicate how the person focused on became interested or involved in the subject that he or she became famous for?
• Does the Author provide information on other people who may have helped the person in his or her achievements?
• Does the Author provide information on the history of the topic before the person became involved?
• Does the Author provide information on how the person’s findings affected the field being discussed?
• Does the introduction provide enough information to the readers, should they not be familiar with the topic being addressed?
• Are there specific areas in which the Author can provide more detail to help the reader better understand the manuscript? Or are there places where the Author has provided too much detail that detracts from the main point?
• Does the Author provide balanced viewpoints on a specific topic if there is debate over the topic in the literature?
• If necessary, does the Author divide the article into specific topics to help the reader better access the article? If not, how should the Author break up the article under specific topics?
• Do the conclusions follow from the information provided by the Author?

Interviews may be presented as either a transcript of an interview with questions and answers or as a personal reflection. If the latter, the Author must indicate that the article is based on an interview given. These pieces should be no more than 5,000 words and contain no more than 3 figures and 2 tables. The articles should include: abstract, introduction, questions and answers clearly indicated by subheadings or topics (with heading and subheadings), and conclusions.

Reviewers should consider the following questions:

• Does the abstract accurately summarize the contents of the manuscript?
• Does the Author provide relevant information to describe who the person is whom they have chosen to interview?
• Does the Author explain why he or she has chosen the person being interviewed?
• Does the Author explain why he or she has decided to focus on a specific topic in the interview?
• Are the questions relevant? Are there more questions that the Author should have asked? Are there questions that the Author has asked that are not necessary?
• If necessary, does the Author divide the article into specific topics to help the reader better access the article? If not, how should the author break up the article under specific topics?
• Does the Author accurately summarize the contents of the interview as well as specific lesson learned, if relevant, in the conclusions?