Reviewer Instructions

Once you have read the article or report, please rate the clarity, relevance to readers, and scientific quality on a scale of 1 to 5. This scale is important as in some cases, depending on the overall number of manuscripts submitted, articles deemed otherwise acceptable for publication may be rejected if they are not of sufficiently high quality or relevance. A sample review may be found at the end of this document.

1. Reviewer Masked Comments to Author

Please include specific, detailed comments regarding the originality, scientific quality, relevance to the field of this journal, and presentation.

Consider the big picture first. Is the purpose of the study stated clearly? Did the study design approach the question appropriately? Do the results support the authors' conclusions?

Try to make comments constructive. Don't just say what is wrong; say how to make it better. Even if you recommend rejection, the article may still end up in print, either in this journal or elsewhere.

Journal space is at a premium. Check the need for tables and figures and the adequacy of the references. Point out places where the prose can be condensed: introductions should be concise and to the point; discussions should address the implications of the new information revealed by the results.

Focus on content. Do not devote too much time correcting minor grammatical flaws. Do make general statements if you have concerns about the writing style or grammar; we will assure that the style and grammar meet Journal standards before the manuscript is published. Do point out unclear or ambiguous sentences and grammatical flaws that may affect meaning, especially those that may be beyond the capacity of a copyeditor not familiar with the nuances of our field.

Supplemental material. If e-supplements are provided, please make an effort to go online and review and comment on these additional materials.

Be specific. Note that authors receive a copy of your specific comments and will refer to these comments in order when preparing their revision. Authors appreciate your citing references that support your comments.

Number your comments. When preparing your comments, please number them in sequence, according to your reviewer number (e.g., 2-1, 2-2, 2-3).

2. Reviewer Confidential Comments to Editor

Please include any confidential comments you wish to make. Comments about the acceptability for publication should be restricted to this section. If you recommend rejection, it is important that you provide comments to the authors that give them a clue as to why you were not happy. It is frustrating for authors to receive what sound like favorable reviews only to find that the paper has been rejected due to confidential comments.

3. Editor Evaluation of Reviews Received

The following criteria are used by editors to judge the quality of every review submitted.

Exceptional (100). The rare outstanding critique that is comprehensive, objective, and insightful. It evaluates the purpose of the study, study design, scientific validity, and conclusions, numbering questions and constructive suggestions to be addressed by the author(s). It includes comments to the editor about whether the submission is new and important and useful to our readers.

Very good (75). Excellent review indicating that the paper was carefully evaluated. Helpful comments to the author and editor with well-documented reasons for decision.

Good/Average (50). Usual type of very satisfactory review. The analysis not as well organized, documented, or as complete as above but is reasonable with adequate comments for the authors.

Below Average (25). Very brief, superficial evaluation, reasons for decision not explained and comments to authors not helpful.

Unacceptable (0). Such a poor review that consideration should be given to not sending further papers to this reviewer. Reasons could include evidence of bias, unfair, faulty reasoning or evaluation (totally disagrees with opinion of other reviewers and editor) and comments to the author either absent, inappropriate, or inadequate to explain how the paper was rated.

* * *

Please return your report before the deadline assigned by the editor. If you are not able to meet the deadline, then please contact your editor or the editorial office. We make every effort to return a decision, positive or not, to authors as soon as possible. In this business, "no news" is NOT "good news"; authors need decisions.

Your contribution of valuable time and energy is much appreciated by the editors and authors, and of course by the readers of the Journal. It is only through the rigorous peer review process that we can maintain the high quality standards for research published in the Journal of AAPOS.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,

David G. Hunter, MD, PhD
Editor-in-Chief

Sample Review

Comments to Authors

Reviewer 1 comments: "Subliminal messaging and strabismus."

Overview

The authors have performed a retrospective review of 100 consecutive patients treated at their institution for strabismus before and after the surgeon introduced a change in technique. In this technique, the doctor whispered "your eyes will be straight from now on" while the patient was under anesthesia. They found that alignment was "good" or "excellent" in 85% of cases, significantly higher than in the control group. This portion of the study was well-designed within the limits of the retrospective study but there are major concerns about bias, and overall the study was unfocused with too many unrelated parts.

Specific comments

1-1. Line 1. The title should be more descriptive-suggest "Intraoperative subliminal suggestion reduces the reoperation rate in exotropia."

1-2. The manuscript has many grammatical and typographical errors that make it difficult to follow. Professional editing is recommended.

1-3. Line 20. Abstract conclusions. They cannot say that subliminal messaging is a "safe and effective treatment" to augment strabismus surgery. Safer than what? More effective than what?

1-4. Line 33. Methods. It is not appropriate that "13 cases were excluded as the data did not conform to the authors expectations." These cases need to be included in the analysis.

1-5. Methods. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are not specified for the aromatherapy portion of the study.

1-6. Line 55. Results. The authors are confusing the correlation coefficient (r) and the p-value (p) when they state that there was a "significant correlation between eye color and shoe size (r = 0.1, p = 0.05)." While the p-value for the correlation is significant, the correlation itself is very weak, only 0.1. Thus, we know with certainty that the weak correlation is real, but that does not make the correlation itself relevant.

1-7. Line 70. Results. This paragraph restates the data in Table 1. It may be deleted.

1-8. Line 80. The section on "astrological sign-surgeon/patient correlation" is difficult to understand. Suggest restructuring as follows: (. . .)

1-9. Lines 95-225. Discussion. This section of the discussion is far too long. Focus on the results of the study and what we have learned. Delete the history of strabismus surgery.

1-10. Discussion. Overall, the discussion is disorganized. Suggest the following order of paragraphs: (. . .)

1-11. Line 290. Again, delete the comment about "safe and effective."

1-12. Table 4. This table contains 100 lines and provides all refractive, pre-op, post-op, and slit lamp findings of every patient. The authors are encouraged to analyze this data with the specific questions that they are trying to ask in mind, and not just ask the reader to peruse the raw data and do the research.

1-13. The figure legends need titles and a better description of the findings.

Comments to Editor

I have given this paper a "Revise" recommendation because at its core there is a neat new concept and the data presented that are relevant to that concept seem to support it. However I was very close to a "Reject" recommendation-it is poorly focused, has sections that are not well written, and the authors are overstating their conclusions.