AURICULAR RECONSTRUCTION

1

• CIRCULATION (46,000)
• IMPACT FACTOR - 2 OF 57
• OBJECTIVES
• EVIDENCE- BASED
• SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY
• STRINGENT REVIEW PROCESS
• CLINICALLY RELEVANT
• TRUSTED RESULTS

2
GREEN JOURNAL REVIEW PROCESS

• MANUSCRIPT SUBMITTED
• REVIEWERS ASSIGNED
• EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER
• 2 EXPERTS ON THE TOPIC
• EDITOR DECISION ?
• STATISTICIAN
• REVISED MANUSCRIPT
• EDITORS CONFERENCE FOR
• FINAL DECISION

3
EVIDENCE-BASED REVIEWS

• INSTRUCTIONS TO REVIEWERS
• REVIEWERS EVALUATED
• EDITOR AWARENESS
• AUTHOR SURVEYS
• RESEARCH - VALIDITY

4
GRADING CRITERIA FOR REVIEWS (1-5)

• 5 - EXCEPTIONAL (10)
• Outstanding critique - comprehensive, objective,
  insightful. Evaluates purpose of the study,
  study design, scientific validity, conclusions.
  Numbered questions, constructive suggestions, to
  be addressed by the author.
• Includes comments to Editor Is it something new
  important, useful to the readers, and should or
  should not be published?
• Prompt return of the review
  

5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
AUTHOR PERCEPTIONS OF REVIEWSGibson M, Scott JR,
Spong CY

• OBJECTIVE
• TO ASSESS AUTHORS SATISFACTION
• METHODS
• SURVEY OF AUTHORS OF 436 CONSECUTIVE ORIGINAL
  RESEARCH ARTICLES

8
RESULTS OVERALL SATISFACTION
9
OVERALL SATISFACTION
P lt 0.005
10
CONCLUSIONS

• AUTHORS SATISFIED WITH REVIEWS
• REJECTED AUTHORS MORE CRITICAL
• ED BOARD FARE BETTER THAN EXPERT REVIEWERS
• EVALUATION OF MANUSCRIPTS SCORES VARY WIDELY
• DO NOT CORRELATE WITH EDITOR RATINGS

11
FRAUD DETECTION

• NO PROVEN METHOD
• MANUSCRIPT REVISION LETTER
• SIGNED AGREEMENT
• AUTHOR REQUIREMENTS
• CONFLICT OF INTEREST
• FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
• COMMON SENSE RULE
• ASK REVIEWERS
• ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION
• ASK AUTHOR FOR DATA

12
PITFALLS

• CAUTION
• PROCESS IN PLACE
• REPUTATIONS CAREERS GET THE FACTS
• LITIGATION RISK LEGAL ADVICE
• EXAMPLES

13

• THE WORLD IS A QUAGMIRE, AND WE MUST TRY TO
  KEEP TO THE HEIGHTS.
• Balzac