PRS Information for Reviewers

Peer Reviewing for PRS

We would like to thank all of our active peer reviewers, whose dedication helps make PRS the #1 journal in our field. We never forget that you are donating your time, enthusiasm, and great expertise to your peers so PRS will continue to enhance our specialty worldwide.

All active peer reviewers are recognized here, and our top-performing peer reviewers are honored in our Reviewer Hall of Fame. Thank you again for all you do!

If you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer for PRS, please register in our Editorial Manager submissions system. If you are already registered as an author, you do not need to register again. Please be sure to update the classifications/areas of expertise listed in your account, as they are used to select reviewers for each manuscript submission.

Once you have registered, please send a copy of your CV to us at [email protected] so the editorial staff can activate your reviewer account.

Accepting New Review Invitations

Reviewers are notified via email when they have been invited to review a new manuscript; notification emails include a link to accept the invitation or decline it. When possible, we request that reviewers agree or decline to review within 3 days of receiving the invitation.

We do not expect reviewers to accept every invitation they receive—that said, we prefer reviewers to decline an invitation quickly rather than not responding at all.

If you find yourself declining review invitations often because the manuscript topics do not fall within your areas of expertise, please make sure that your listed classifications in your Editorial Manager profile are up to date and let us know so that we can better match you to papers within your expertise.

When declining an invitation to review, please include a reason, particularly if we have misjudged your areas of interest or expertise. You are also welcome to suggest the names of other colleagues who may be available to review the paper instead.

Submitting Reviews

Completed reviews are due 14 days after a reviewer has agreed/accepted the invitation. All reviews should be submitted under your Reviewer account in Editorial Manager.

Once you've agreed to review a manuscript, you can check the status of the review process by logging into your reviewer portal in Editorial Manager. When at least three reviews have already been completed for a manuscript, its status will change to "Required Reviews Complete." This status is a good indicator that the Editor may be moving forward with a decision soon.

If you need additional time to complete your review, please email us as soon as possible—preferably before the due date of the review.

TOP

Content of the Review

Peer reviewing for PRS is an opportunity to provide guidance and mentorship to authors, whether their manuscript is eventually published in PRS or in another journal entirely. High-quality reviews are essential: they help authors improve their papers and also assist the Editor-in-Chief in the editorial decision-making process.

A good review offers a summary of the paper and your opinions of it as a reviewer. More importantly, a good review critiques the merits of the paper. Here are some questions to consider when reviewing a new manuscript:

• Is it appropriate for PRS?
• Is the topic interesting or original?
• Were the authors’ methods ethical?
• Is there a better way to address the issue than what the authors have done?
• Do the figures/tables add to the paper?
• Would you cite the paper if published?
• Are there any missing key citations from the paper?
• Does the data back up the authors’ findings?
• Are there any fatal flaws in the paper?

Overview of Recommendations

The review form prompts reviewers to select one of the following recommendations based on their comprehensive review of each manuscript:

"Reject" – Rejection should be recommended if you believe a manuscript is unsuitable for PRS and cannot be made suitable with revisions.

"Major Revision" – Major revision should be recommended if you believe a manuscript requires extensive corrections and revisions (thoroughly made and carefully re-reviewed upon resubmission) to be made suitable for PRS.

"Minor Revision" – Minor revision should be recommended if you feel a manuscript is a good fit for PRS and have revision requests that will enhance or clarify a manuscript without requiring the authors to extensively rewrite or rework the study (i.e., no fundamental flaws).

"Accept" – Acceptance should be recommended when if/when all previous requests have been thoroughly and adequately addressed and if no further revisions are needed. Acceptance should not be recommended in the first round of review.

Overview of Rankings

The review form also instructs reviewers to rank each submission among other submissions they have reviewed in the past.

• "Below Top 20%; unsuitable"
• "Top 10-20%; ok if materials are needed"
• "Top 10%; must publish"

Rankings should largely correspond to the recommendation made for each submission.

Consistency of Ranking and Recommendation

Recommendations should largely correspond to the ranking of each submission:

• "Reject" – If you believe a manuscript is unsuitable for PRS and cannot be made suitable with revisions.
• Below Top 20%; unsuitable


• "Major Revision" – If you believe a manuscript requires extensive corrections and revisions (thoroughly made and carefully re-reviewed) to be made suitable for PRS.
• Below Top 20%; unsuitable
• Top 10-20%; ok if materials are needed
• Top 10%; must publish


• "Minor Revision" – If you have revision requests that will enhance or clarify a manuscript without requiring the authors to extensively rewrite the paper or rework the study (i.e., no fundamental flaws).
• Top 10-20%; ok if materials are needed
• Top 10%; must publish


• "Accept" – If all previous requests have been thoroughly and adequately addressed and if no further revisions are needed.  Acceptance should not be recommended in the first round of review.
• Top 10%; must publish

For example, you should not recommend that a paper be accepted if you have ranked below the top 20% of submissions you’ve reviewed. You could, however, recommend "Major Revision" for a submission that you’ve ranked as "Top 10%"—this combination of recommendation and ranking indicates to the Editor-in-Chief or designate that the paper should be published in PRS if the authors can make the requested and required revisions.

Reviewer Comments

Reviewer comments should offer thoughtful, constructive feedback to authors as well as aid the Editor-in-Chief in making a final decision for each manuscript. PRS reviewers are expected to follow the Peer Reviewer Golden Rule: "Review unto others as you would have them review unto you."

The review form prompts reviewers to provide comments in two separate fields: Comments to the Authors and Confidential Comments to the Editor.

There are different purposes and expectations for each of these comment fields, as outlined below.

Comments to the Authors

• Comments to the authors are required.
• If requesting revisions, concrete guidance to the authors is necessary to help them improve their paper.
• If recommending rejection, feedback is necessary to explain your concerns and support the Editor’s final decision for the paper.
• Specificity is key.
• Examples:
• Rather than simply stating that there are too many figures, let the authors know which figures should be removed in your view.
• Rather than simply stating that the conclusions of a study are unjustified, provide concrete critiques for why they are unjustified and/or how they should be amended.


• Comments to the authors should remain neutral.
• Please provide meaningful, constructive comments and critiques that will help the authors improve their paper. Inflammatory, insulting comments are not allowed.
• Likewise, please refrain from offering overt praise, enthusiasm, or congratulations to the authors directly. Such comments to the author will be removed. If you are enthusiastic about a paper and believe it should be published, please let the Editor know in your confidential comments.


• Comments should critique the merits of the study itself.
• Minor formatting or copyediting issues need not be addressed in your review, as the publisher and society both have personnel dedicated to copyediting and proofreading the text.
• Two exceptions:
• If the entire manuscript needs to be revised by a native English speaker, please alert the Editor and/or authors in your reviewer comments.
• If a figure (particularly a graphic or graph) has misspelled words or non-American spelling standards, please alert the authors.

Confidential Comments to the Editor

• Comments to the Editor should support and justify the recommendation you’ve made for a submission.
• Please provide 2-3 quick reasons to justify your selected recommendation (i.e., why you think a paper should be rejected, accepted, or revised/re-reviewed for PRS).
• These comments can be candid and informal.


• Utilize confidential comments to let the Editor know if:
• You have major concerns regarding the ethics or integrity of a submission.
• You have concerns that authors may be salami-slicing or duplicating publications (i.e., similar studies by the same authors have been previously published or are pending publication)
• You feel a manuscript would be a better fit for a different journal.
• You feel a manuscript may be better suited for PRS under a different article type.


• If you believe a manuscript would benefit from a discussion if published
• Please let the Editor know who you’d recommend as a discussant.

Other Items to Review

We ask that reviewers alert the Editor and/or ask the authors to revise the following items:

• Priority claims
• Studies should not claim to be the "first" or "largest" of their kind.


• Titles that are unprofessional or hyperbolic


• Professionalism of photographs
• In addition to reviewing the appropriateness, value, and quality of a submission’s figures, we ask that you also provide feedback on the professionalism of the figures, in particular photographs.
• The background should not be cluttered or have inappropriate imagery.
• The operative field or substrate should not be "messy."
• If authors are unable to provide updated professional figure(s), is the article acceptable without said figure(s)? If not, please let the Editor know in your comments.

Review Examples

For examples of high-quality reviews, click here.

For examples of low-quality reviews, click here.

TOP

Earning CME Credit

By peer reviewing for PRS, you are eligible to earn CME credit. Reviewers can earn 3 AMA PRA Category 1 credits for each satisfactory peer review he or she completes.

CME credits are granted based on the quality of the comments provided by the reviewer. Each completed review is graded by the editorial staff and the Editor-in-Chief before reviewer comments are sent to the authors. Credit may be denied if the Editor-in-Chief’s guidance for recommendations and/or comments has not been followed (e.g., no comments provided for the authors).

CME certificates are processed and delivered by the publisher.

TOP

Additional Information for Reviewers

Updating Reviewer Classifications & Specialties

The best way to ensure that you are receiving invitations to review is to update your personal classifications in Editorial Manager. These classifications are used to match reviewers to new submissions that fall within their topical areas of expertise. We recommend making your personal classifications list as robust as possible.

To update your classifications, please follow these steps:

1. Log in to your Editorial Manager account, select your username in the top right-hand corner of the webpage, and then select "Update My Information." If you do not know your login credentials, please contact the editorial office at [email protected].
   
   

    

2. Scroll to the bottom of the page to the section labeled "Areas of Interest or Expertise." Here, you can select your personal classifications. You can also rank your classifications, if you desire.
   

    

3. Once you've selected all applicable classifications, select "Submit" to save your changes.
   
   

    

Updating Availability

Reviewers often decline review invitations because they are out of town or have limited time due to other duties. To avoid receiving review invitations when you are unavailable, please update your availability in Editorial Manager. In your profile, you may list specific days or timeframes for which you are not available to review. The Editor-in-Chief and editorial staff will be notified and will respectfully refrain from sending any new review invitations during the time periods listed.

To update your availability, please follow these steps:

1. Log in to your Editorial Manager account, select your username in the top right-hand corner of the webpage, and then select "Update My Information." If you do not know your login credentials, please contact the editorial office at [email protected].
   
   

    

2. Scroll to the bottom of the page to the section labeled "Additional Information." Here, you will find an "Unavailable Dates" button.
   

    

3. Select the "Add New Unavailable Date" from the window that pops up.
   

    

You will then be asked to fill in the dates you will be unable to review. You may also fill in "Substitute Information" if you know someone else who you believe could provide timely, unbiased reviews of papers within your areas of expertise.

Automatic Due Date Reminders

Automatic due date reminders are offered with each review invitation and are included as a mail attachment. Reminders automatically link to your calendar within email programs (such as iCalendar or Outlook Exchange). Once liked to your email calendar, you will receive reminders regarding your review’s due date.

To utilize this feature, follow the steps below:

1. Select the "Agree to Review" link in the initial reviewer invitation sent to you via email.
2. Once agreeing to review, you will receive another email that contains the calendar attachment. Select the attachment and save the appointment to the email/calendar program of your choice.
   
   

    

Web of Science Reviewer Recognition

Web of Science Reviewer Recognition is a website and free service for academics to track, verify, and showcase their completed peer reviews and editorial contributions for academic journals.

Your Web of Science reviewer profile will display your verified review history across all journals, without revealing any sensitive information about the manuscript. The content of your reviews will not be shared on your profile. The titles, authors, and final decisions for manuscripts you’ve reviewed will not be shared either.

To receive recognition for your Web of Science reviewer profile, please follow these steps:

1. Select "Yes" to the following question on the review form for each manuscript you review.
   
   

    

2. Once your review is complete, Web of Science will send you a private link to claim your review. Use this link to add your review to your Web of Science reviewer profile. If you do not have a profile, you will be prompted to create one.

Reviewer Statistics

To view your reviewer statistics, select "My Review History" from the left-hand side of your Reviewer Main Menu.

Historical Reviewer Invitation Statistics:

• Agreed to Review/Declined to Review
• A "great" reviewer does not need to accept every invitation just to keep the number of papers "Declined to Review" at zero. It is better to decline a review invitation than to agree to review a paper and then fail to complete it. When you decline a review, Editorial Manager notifies the Editor to invite someone else.
• For comparison: Reviewers who are on the PRS Editorial Board accept 90.3% of the review invitations they receive.

Historical Reviewer Performance Summary:

• Total Completed Reviews
• For comparison: Reviewers who are on the PRS Editorial Board are expected to complete 90% of the reviews for which they’ve accepted invitations.
• Un-assigned After Agreeing to Review
• This statistic may be complicated if the Editor-in-Chief removes you from a review assignment before the 14-day deadline. This may occur if the Editor has received enough feedback to make a decision on a manuscript. That said, we request that reviewers keep this number to a minimum.

Historical Reviewer Averages:

• Days to Complete Review
• For comparison: Reviewers who are on the PRS Editorial Board complete their reviews 7 days early (-7), on average.

Please note that these numbers only provide a quantitative analysis of your reviewer performance. The Editor-in-Chief and PRS leadership always consider the quality of your reviews as well.

Reviews submitted outside the Editorial Manager—such as reviews you’ve sent to the editorial staff via email—will not count toward the listed metrics.

You can create your own comparative "reviewer report card" using your "My Review History" reviewer statistics at any time by filling out this table:

External Resources

• Free Wolters Kluwer Health Peer Reviewer Training Course
• "How to Review a Paper" by the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Editor (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;150:1383-1385.)
• Other PRS Publications on Peer Review

TOP