Review sheets include a rating (1 - 5) for manuscripts by reviewers.
Ratings aid the editor's comparison of initial reviews of a manuscript. Manuscripts should be rated in comparison to those usually appearing in Ophthalmology.
Definitions:
These "guidelines" for rating manuscripts are necessarily subjective and imprecise. Reviewers should exercise their own judgment as to what issue or issues justify their final recommendation. Revision may move a manuscript up the scale and greatly improve its likelihood for acceptance. Only rarely are manuscripts accepted without some revisions.
1 = Excellent manuscript in all regards. (few expected in this category)
Good science, follows scientific method, no major flaws
Exciting new information (breakthrough)
Timely, clinically relevant
Well-planned, data clearly presented, logical analysis, appropriate statistics
Discussion and conclusions flow logically from data
Good language and spelling, format appropriate for Journal, follows instructions
Excellent readability
No conflict of interest or ethical problems
Title and length appropriate
Citations comprehensive but not excessive
Tag as "lead" article, or as of sufficient interest to justify editorial
Accept as is (rare) or with minor to moderate revisions
2 = Good (above average) manuscript. (most accepted papers are in this category)
General qualities typical of most papers in Ophthalmology
Usually only minor to moderate revisions required, re-review usually not necessary
No major flaws in concept or logic
No ethical or conflict of interest problems
Adds some new information with clinical relevance
Readable, clinically relevant
Appropriate analysis, or minor flaws correctable without major effort
Language good, formatting appropriate or easily fixed
Citations reasonable
3 = Average manuscript. (many rejected because of lack of space or limited interest)
Good science but not exciting, not new, issues already well described in literature
Moderate or major revisions required, re-review may be necessary
Average language and readability, often too long
Appropriate analysis
Citations reasonable
4 = Below average manuscript. (most rejections in this category)
Revision unlikely to lead to acceptance, may waste editorial office effort
Major revisions recommended
Re-review necessary before reconsidering
Flawed study organization, data collection, methods
Analysis inadequate or inappropriate
Low clinical relevance
Disconnect between data and conclusions
No new information
Poor language
Incomplete or excessive citations
5 = Not acceptable (reject)
Hopeless, flawed beyond repair
Not appropriate for Journal
No new information
Poorly conceived, data inadequate, analysis flawed
Language unacceptable
No justification for additional peer-review effort
Citations inadequate, inappropriate
Estimating "average" reader interest:
Reviewers are also asked to estimate reader interest from high to low. Many excellent papers may have limited appeal to the average reader and may be more appropriate for alternative journals. The "average reader" of Ophthalmology is assumed to be board qualified or certified and in private or group practice doing comprehensive vision care.
B. Confidential Review Rating by Editor:
The reviewer pool currently includes over 5000 individuals. Review ratings for previously assigned manuscripts greatly help the editor to assign new manuscripts.
Ratings (1-5 )
Guidelines by which the Editor rates reviews:
1 = Valuable new insight, appropriately objective and detailed.
Fair, constructive criticisms that benefit the author and the Journal. Involved significant personal knowledge or effort to authenticate data. May have sought additional input from colleagues regarding data analysis, expertise outside his/her own field. Well written without inappropriate remarks. Attention to all sections of the manuscript. No conflict of interest. Remarks and recommendations consistent. Follows instructions. Met deadlines for turnaround. Remarks for author separated from confidential comments to Editor.
2 = Very useful review with some new insight.
Fair and constructive with benefit to author and Journal. Clear opinion as to whether to accept, revise or reject. Remarks and recommendations consistent. No inappropriate remarks or conflict of interest evident. Appropriate attention to entire manuscript. Follows instructions. Met deadlines.
3 = Brief but useful comments.
Fair but minimally insightful or constructive criticisms that might improve the manuscript. Consistency between remarks and recommendations. No conflict of interest. Followed instructions and met deadlines.
4 = Abbreviated or hypercritical comment of marginal use.
Wandering, non-focused discussion with no constructive criticisms. Inconsistencies between remarks and recommendations. Late return of review or incomplete reviewer sheet.
5 = Useless review: Inappropriate remarks.
No constructive criticism. Not clear that reviewer understood the topic. No attempt to acquire help with topics where expertise lacking (may have over-extended own expertise). Obvious conflict of interest. Hypercritical or unfair. Wasted editorial office effort and time.
