In this individual or group peer-review exercise, you will have the opportunity to practice reviewing a research report manuscript that was submitted to Academic Medicine and to compare your review comments with those of the actual reviewers. As this is a practice review, we have removed author information from the paper; in a real review, you would see the authors’ names and institutions as Academic Medicine uses single-blind review.
For the purposes of this practice exercise, we suggest you spend about 30-40 minutes reading the manuscript. You may wish to focus on a specific section or two of this research report rather than attempting to read the whole paper as closely as you would if you were doing the actual review. If you work with a group, we suggest that each group member or small group focus on a different section of the paper, then share their recommendations as part of a group discussion. Do not look at the actual reviews until you have finished writing your comments. Do not send us your review comments; this is a practice exercise only.
This original manuscript submission, titled "When Guidelines Don’t Guide: The Effect of Patient Context on Management Decisions Based on Clinical Practice Guidelines," and its reviews are used with the permission of the corresponding author.
To guide your review process, we recommend using the Checklist of Review Criteria, drawn from the Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts, 2nd ed.
If you have not already done so, before you begin the exercise, we suggest watching our 5-minute video, What Editors Want: An Overview for Reviewers, and reading our AM Rounds blog series of review tips from the journal’s top reviewers. We also suggest reviewing our Guidelines for Reviewer Recommendations.
Review prompt and manuscript
Academic Medicine does not use a structured review form. Rather, we ask that reviewers provide constructive, substantive comments that will help the authors improve their paper. As you review this manuscript, please consider the contribution to the literature, generalizability, and whether the conclusions are justified. Please also provide feedback on the method, statistical/other analysis, reporting of the results, and limitations. Finally, decide on the overall recommendation you would make to the editor (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject). In an actual review, you would also provide confidential comments to the editor to support your recommendations, etc., but that is not the focus of this exercise.
Practice Review Exercise instructions
Practice Review Exercise manuscript
Links to the actual reviews that Academic Medicine received on this manuscript are provided below so you can compare your comments with those of the peer reviewers.
Reviewer 1 comments to the author
Reviewer 2 comments to the author
The editor invited revisions. A link to the authors’ response to the reviewers is provided below, so you can see how the authors addressed the reviewers’ comments in their revised manuscript.
Author response to reviewers
The revised manuscript was accepted, edited, and published in February 2015.