Instructions for Peer Reviewers for Clinical Inquiries

Download a PDF version of the Peer Review Instructions.

    Peer Reviewer Checklist  (word)

CME for Peer Review
AAFP members who review articles for Medline-listed journals may self-report up to 3 prescribed credits per review, earning a maximum of 15 credits in this category per year.  No tangible certificate is necessary. 

Qualifications
Peer reviewers should have expertise and experience with the clinical topic or expertise in critical appraisal of medical literature, or both.   Peer reviewers should be qualified clinicians who have completed their training; residents and other trainees may co-peer review an article with a qualified colleague.

Responsibilities
The role of the peer reviewer for a Clinical Inquiry has many similarities to the peer review role for any manuscript.  The major exception to this statement is that we do not ask our peer reviewers to make recommendations regarding acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.   Also, peer reviewers do not remain anonymous to the author(s).

The role of the peer reviewer is different from that of the clinical commentator.  The clinical commentators base their remarks on both the content of the Clinical Inquiry and on their own clinical experience.  The commentators are not so much providing a peer review as a clinical perspective (see instructions for clinical commentators).

The editors want to know if the manuscript is well written, presents the information clearly, and draws appropriate conclusions.   In addition, since the Clinical Inquiry is a very concise summary of the evidence and the most pertinent authoritative recommendations, the editors would like to know if all of the important evidence and recommendations appear to have been identified. They would also like to know if the evidence appears to have been interpreted appropriately with respect to relevance and validity and if it has been summarized accurately. A peer reviewer should also indicate if any of the material presented is extraneous, superficial, or repetitive.   The peer reviewer’s comments may be short or lengthy; there is no word limit.

We have developed a checklist to assist the reviewer.  Reviewers must submit the check list along with reviewed manuscript.  We ask that peer reviewers use Microsoft Word’s track changes feature when completing any editing to the manuscript if possible.

Reviews need to be submitted within two weeks of notification that the manuscript is ready for your review.  Reviewers will receive an email with the due date and instructions for submitting their review and checklist. 

Submitting your Peer Review:

Submit your peer review and checklist through the FPIN Editorial Management System (EMS).  You will receive an email with instructions on how to download and upload reviews.

1. Login to www.fpin.org click on My Questions
   • The contributor screen will open
2. Download the manuscript
   • Under Latest Submission select manuscript
   • Save the manuscript in a place on your hard drive that you will be able to access when you are finished with your review.
3. Turn "track changes" on in Microsoft Word and complete your peer review.
   • Please contact the managing editor if you need instructions on how to do this.
4. Complete the checklist, again saving it in a location you will be able to access for upload.
5. Upload:
   • Login to www.fpin.org click on My Questions
   • Peer-reviewed manuscript
   • Checklist
   • Select Submit Peer Review
6. Submit to Assistant Editor by selecting Submit
   • You will receive a confirmation page.

Updated 6.06