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 1. Alfonso F, Adamyan K, Artigou JY, AschermannM, BoehmM, Buendia A, et al. Data sharing: a new editorial initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Implications for the Editors Network. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2017;108(5):390-395. 2. DeMaria AN. What constitutes a great review? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(7):1314-5. 3. Allen LA, Ho PM. Peer reviewof amanuscript submission: a how-to guide for effectiveandefficientcommentary.CircHeartFail.2017;10(12):pii:e004766. References This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License RECOMMENDATION FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEWERS STRUCTURE OF THE REVIEW COMMENTS TO AUTHORS 1. Manuscript summary from the reviewer’s perspective How the reviewer “sees” the article. Describe in your own words the objectives, methods and important findings. How does the article compare in the literature? 2. General comments These are the most important comments that support and justify acceptance or refusal . In this section of comments to authors, never state your opinion on whether the manuscript should or should not be accepted, not even the possibility of acceptance or rejection. 2.1. Originality Assess originality and make a quick literature search in the topic and authors. Assess what has been published. This is the most common reason for refusal. 2.2 Validity Check if the data are valid: sample, appropriate data collection and analysis, sound statistics. Avoid asking for more cases or analysis, unless it is possible. Are the results valid for other populations? 2.3 Relevance State your opinion on whether the study is relevant and why. What is the importance of the findings in the specific area? How does the study suit the needs of our journals’ readers? 2.4 Extras Comment on other strengths (well written, significant sample size), weaknesses (inappropriate methodology, unreliable data analysis), severe mistakes or very important limitations, extension of the manuscript and its parts (appropriate, too short, too long). 3. Specific comments List punctual formal and grammar mistakes, meaningless sentences, correction of tables and figures, specific questions about certain points (how participants were selected, ask more details about the methodology, ask for specific statistic methods, express doubts about data collection and analysis, and how measurements were taken). Check the references (if they correspond to the text where they are indicated and if they are in the correct order), at least some randomly. But do not exceed in detail here. What matters most is your opinion about the manuscript in the ‘general comments’ space. CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS TO EDITORS Very important section. Do not skip it. Give your honest opinion on the manuscript. Here the reviewer can directly state to the editors his opinion on whether the manuscript should be accepted or refused. Be technical, but be aware that the manuscripts submitted to our journals usually have limitations. Avoid extreme rigidity! In your opinion, is publishing the article a priority? If approved, should there be an editorial about the article? State whether the manuscript requires minor, major or more extensive reviews. In case of rejection, can the manuscript be resubmitted after being fully rewritten (de novo submission)? Acceptance without any review is rare, but, if that is the case, justify! 108