ABC | Volume 110, Nº2, February 2018

Editorial Rochitte and Mesquita What are the characteristics of an excellent review of scientific articles? Arq Bras Cardiol. 2018; 110(2):106-108 Continuing with the technical questions on the manuscript being reviewed, reviewers should ask: Are the methods for data collection and analysis appropriate and accurate? Are the results significant for the area? Can the conclusions be supported by the results? We suggest such questions be divided into two types: general and specific comments. The general comments are the most important ones and should comprise the manuscript’s positive and negative general aspects. For example, if there is an important methodological flaw or if the sample size is insufficient, or if originality is a strength. Those aspects should be part of the general comments. The specific comments comprise grammar or sentence corrections and suggestions of change in tables and figures, which are formal aspects to be fixed, and the reviewer should indicate their respective page and paragraph. It is worth noting how frequent such data lack in the reviewer’s comments, leaving the interpretation for the editors. Would that lack of information indicate that the article is suitable for publication? The best reviews compare the manuscript with the current literature in the specific area, in addition to providing the references that support the reviewer’s opinions, especially regarding the manuscript’s originality. Quite often, editors must judge a manuscript based on different opinions from different reviewers. Very likely, the opinion supported by the literature will prevail. A common mistake in our editing management system is when reviewers repeat the comments to authors in the space reserved for comments to editors. This space is intended for confidential comments, where reviewers are free to justify directly why they accept or reject the manuscript, or even suggest its rejection or acceptance, justifying their decision. In that same space, reviewers can comment if the manuscript is suitable for our audience. Although this is a fundamental task of editors, the reviewer’s opinion will be considered, and often the editors will follow the reviewer’s opinion. It is worth noting and emphasizing that, in the ‘comments to authors’ section, reviewers should never state whether the manuscript would or would not be accepted. The authors should only receive comments on specific scientific merits and suggestions for improvement. Nevertheless, despite the determinant role of the review in the fate of the manuscript, the final decision of acceptance or refusal is up to the editors, and, eventually, to the editor-in-chief. It is worth noting the practical fact that the review is undoubtedly a very individual process, to which there is no formal training, and, similarly to medicine, an art. Thus, the result of the scientific review is necessarily a mix of scientific merit and the reviewer’s opinion. From the editors’ viewpoint, reviewers must acknowledge that our journals, whose best impact factor is 1.18, will receive manuscripts with scientific limitations inherent in any submission, but possibly more evident in our cases. In this context, the reviewer should decide whether the manuscript, despite its limitations, deserves to be published or not, and communicate that clearly to the editors, in the ‘confidential comments to editors’ space. Excessive rigidity is not recommended at that point. Assess and reflect. Be neither aggressive nor rude. Be technical. Remember the large amount of effort the colleagues put into the task, from the project elaboration to the manuscript’s final writing. In the next step, the reviewer should act as a consultant to authors, clearly indicating which changes should be made to provide the manuscript with quality for publishing. Finally, be concise. Short and objective texts, and even a list of items of the changes suggested, are sufficient. Do not exceed one page of text with single line spacing. We do not recommend long reviews with endless lists of changes. Even the specific comments on shape and grammar, if frequent in themanuscript, can be summarized as only one suggestion of extensive grammar review. Our journals can use writing consultants in English and Portuguese. The same is valid for the statistical analysis, for which we count on a statistical appraiser and consultant for all manuscripts submitted. The review of scientific articles and reviewers are extremely important for the scientific community in general and for the existence of the journals. Despite the increasing trend towards previous publishing in repositories prior to peer review to accelerate the dissemination of the results, peer review is fundamental for the reliability of an article in the scientific community. Thus, the review of scientific manuscripts is a huge responsibility of inestimable value, which leads editors to keep in mind the names of the high-quality reviewers. To confirm that value, we will go beyond the prizes for the most punctual reviewer, enhancing the awards and recognition in our scientific community for reviewers who perform best. Wait and see! The following table summarizes our recommendations for reviewers. We hope to have contributed to foster an efficient dialogue between reviewers and editors in the coming years, in addition to yielding an increasingly suitable selection of articles for publishing in our journals. 107