Guide for JMIG Reviewers
Thank you again for agreeing to review for JMIG. Please click on the article type below for specific reviewer instructions.
Instructions for Instruments and Techniques and Review articles to come.
When you’re ready to submit your review, please submit via https://www.editorialmanager.com/tjmig/ or the link in the “Thank you for agreeing to review” email.
Original Article Grading Guidelines:
Please consider whether this manuscript will add to the literature in a meaningful way. Although encouraged for all reviewers, it is the expectation that Editorial Board members perform a literature search for all manuscripts reviewed.
Do they clearly and accurately describe the article and content?
Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es), and the general experimental design or method.
Tables and graphs
If included, are they clear and make sense? Are they accurate? Are they helpful in understanding the manuscript?
Is the study design described accurately and is it suitable for answering the question posed? Does the article identify the procedures followed and adequately describe the equipment and materials used? Could you replicate the research based on the information given?
Are the statistics correct and can you understand the results? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
Are the claims in this section supported by the results; do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research (please consider doing a literature search to strengthen the review)? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward and can be of service to our readers?
If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the science, you do not need to correct the English. You should bring this to the attention of the editor.
Case reports and images meet a different standard than other submissions and do NOT need to follow the journal format. A case report describes of up to three related cases that detail an innovative diagnostic or treatment approach or an unusual case presentation. It is important that the report adds to the literature and potentially impacts on patient care rather than just being the first or different from previous reports. Case reports must greatly contribute to the literature and be likely to significantly impact on future research and/or the care that we provide our patients.
Case reports should not exceed 2,000 words with no more than 10 references.
Manuscripts submitted to the images section must have a unique image that is easily understood and will be of value to our readers for its unique nature, demonstration and view of an unusual finding or have other noteworthy characteristics. Image submissions do not need to be original research or unique, but should consist of an image that would be of interest to our readers.
Images are one page in length and includes up to 3 high resolution color photos and/or diagnostic images and text of no more than 300 words.
As a reviewer you are tasked with an important role when it comes to watching and grading videos. Unlike a written manuscript where the information presented by the author(s) is laid out in a very concise written form, you are being tasked with watching a visual presentation (video), and determining if the video meets all of the necessary benchmarks for being accepted as Video Article for the Journal. For various reasons, we all see videos differently. These differences are related to our interest, expertise or background on a particular topic, so it is expected that your experience with reviewing videos can and often will vary from those of other reviewers. To maintain consistency in what the Journal is asking for you to look for in a video, we have provided a guide for you to use when making your determination on the worthiness of a video. However your determination to accept or reject should not solely be based on the items outlined in this guide, but also with your expertise and experiences in our field.
Does the video achieve its intended purpose?
Does the video represent something new that would contribute to the education of the journals subscribers?
Is the author(s) effective visually at conveying the educational intent?
Is the video adhering to sound surgical/medical principles?
If the video contains anatomy, does the video adhere to correct anatomic principles?
If the video does not contain anatomy, is the video adhering to correct scientific principles?
If the video is aiming to demonstrate a new technique, what is the potential scientific value and/or the innovativeness of the new technique.
If the video does not demonstrate a new technique, how correctly does the video correlate with the medical literature?
Does the presentation follow a logical format?
Do creative elements contribute to the content of the presentation? (Creative elements should not detract from the video content)
Is the narration should be in English. (All narration should be in English)
Is there Music? (Videos should not contain music. Videos with music will not be accepted.)
How appropriate is the editing?
Do you feel the video is comprised of too much commercial footage or has a commercial bias?
Comments to editor (will not be shared with author)
Reviewers: If you are discussing a particular portion of a video positive or negative, please indicate the time in minutes and seconds (Example 04:20) to help the editor(s) quickly identify or find the location you are referencing.
Comments to author
Reviewers: If you are discussing a particular portion of video, positive or negative, please indicate the time in minutes and seconds (Example 04:20) to help the author quickly identify or find the location you are referencing.
Please note all reviews are subject to a confidentiality policy -http://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14156/supporthub/publishing/
For more information on reviewing, including tools and resources, please go to https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/how-to-review