我们问了本月的EBMofBMC Cardiovascular Disordersthe question:

‘’’What is one piece of advice you would give to reviewers as an EBM overseeing peer review ?“

Here are their replies:

• “I would advise reviewers to think about how the manuscript at hand could be improved. The ultimate goal is to make published research better, such that the benefit to the public is maximized. I believe this can be achieved by being unbiased, open-minded, and thorough in assessing submitted work”.英国牛津大学纳菲尔德人口健康系高级统计学家Christiana Kartsonaki博士

• “将每个手稿都像对待自己的论文一样。至关重要的是，不仅指出缺陷，而且要欣赏每项工作中的优点。审稿人不仅在接受和拒绝之间做出选择。取而代之的是，审稿人可以提供有价值的建议，并帮助作者提高论文的质量。评论者不是作者的反对者，而是并排工作的老师和朋友。”Prof Guo-wei Tu, Chief Physician and Associate Professor of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

• 我建议审阅者只有时间并需要特定手稿的专业知识，才能致力于审核过程。当审稿人同意处理手稿时，这令人沮丧和不便，但不回报任何评论或向作者提供很少的反馈。审查过程应该对作者建设性，如果经验丰富的科学家参与其中，将会更加有益。”Dr Stavroula Kanoni, Lecturer in Nutrigenetics and Cardiovascular Health, William Harvey Research Institute, Barts & the London Medical School, Queen Mary University of London, UK

• “All reviewers, including me, are expected to abide by the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). They are expected to spend adequate time to avoid missing anything. The history of medicine cannot forget the rejection of Sir Hans Adolf Krebs’ article by a prestigious journal in 1937, where he described the discovery which led him to obtain the Nobel prize. We should not let such egregious or even minor errors at lower scales be repeated”.Prof Elaheh Malakan Rad, Professor of Pediatric Interventional Cardiology, Children’s Medical Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran

• “我建议审阅者更多地关注论文的内容以及拟议的研究的有效性，而不是专注于演讲。有些论文是无可挑剔的，但缺乏新颖或相关的研究。我还建议花适量的时间来审查论文，因为这通常是作者的巨大努力的结果。Prof Stafano Omboni, Director of the Italian Institute of Telemedicine, Italy and Professor of Cardiology, First Moscow State Medical University, Russia

• “审稿人对每个期刊都是宝贵的，因为他们的判断和评论代表了手稿审查过程中的重要组成部分。因此，履行审阅者的任务需要在知识和参与方面的时间和奉献精神。详尽的评论很快就可以帮助作者进步。因此，我会建议潜在的审稿人参加一些课程，以学习如何成为工作的专家。另外，我们的日记还提供了一些在线提供的培训课程。”奥尔多·兰西博士的内科，，，，Ospedale di Circolo e Fondazione Macchi in Varese, Italy

• “我通常建议学习如何成为审查专家。这不是一件容易的事。在线有一些培训课程。我们必须专注于科学方法和手稿的质量。已发表的数据会损害临床实践，并为我们的患者带来痛苦。我们有责任维护人们对公共卫生的信仰，并且必须在决策中谨慎，以防止任何并发症恶化我们的患者的生活质量”。约翰·亚历山大·哈拉莫夫（John Alexander Kharlamov）博士，德哈尔研究工作队，鹿特丹，荷兰和塔林，爱沙尼亚

• “The advice I would give to any reviewer is: accept reviewing a manuscript when you have specific expertise on the topic and the ability to appraise the methods and results presented critically. It is always ok to apologize and decline to review if you are unable to handle a manuscript, or because of conflict of interest. Another critical point is to try to finalize your recommendations in time. We have all been in these situations where our paper’s decision is delayed because of the one reviewer who did not complete his review. Please do not be that reviewer”.干预心脏病学研究员兼临床教师Michael Megaly博士，班纳大学医学中心和UA医学学院 - 美国

• “I would advise a timely and constructive review for an efficient editorial process. Sometimes, the reviewers ignore adding a note to the editor, which might help make editorial decisions”.Dr Gaurav Sharma, early-career researcher, Advanced Imaging Research Centre, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Centre, USA

• “Remember that reviewing means being at the service of the authors. The first question a reviewer should ask themselves is whether the paper is out of scope or unsuitable for publication in that particular journal. If this is the case, do not delay your decision, as this will only harm the authors’ effort to find the right journal for their work. If the paper and journal are a good (or at least a possible) match, take the time to analyze the paper thoroughly, before making your decision and give feedback that will improve the author’s work”.Dr Claudio Montalto, Cardiology resident, University of Pavia, Italy and Interventional Cardiology Fellow, Oxford University Hospital NHS Trust, UK

• “同行评议过程对publishin至关重要g exciting and authentic scientific findings, and the reviewer’s role is crucial here. Reviewer’s comments are the building blocks of the editorial board’s decision. My advice to all potential reviewers is: accomplish the assignment on time; keep an unbiased approach; provide comprehensive and constructive scientific comments in a friendly manner; highlight the significance of an article you review, thereby helping the associate editor make a final decision; inform the EBM if you cannot handle or understand any specific part of the manuscript, such as statistical and bioinformatics analysis. Additionally, if needed, reviewers should enroll in various training courses available online at various journals, including those available atBMC Cardiovascular Disorders，，，，to improve the skills required for best and ethical review practice”.爱荷华州爱荷华大学卡弗医学院高级研究员Gourav Bhardwaj博士