Table.Presubmission Checklist |
Reviewer type | Item | Requirements to double-check |
Editorial reviewer | 1 | Does the topic of your article fall into the scope of the journal? |
2 | Does the title meet the journal specifications in terms of word count and formulation? |
3 | Does the abstract meet the journal specifications (word count, structure)? |
4 | Did you follow all formatting guidelines as you were writing, drawing tables, and designing figures? |
5 | What are the registration requirements for your study? |
6 | Did you obtain ethics approval for your study? |
7 | Did you obtain consent to release any personally identifiable information? |
8 | Did you use a copyrighted material without permission (plagiarism)? |
9 | Did all authors disclose their conflicts of interest? |
10 | Did you declare all funding received and the role of the funders in the research process and decision to publish? |
11 | Did you describe the contribution of all authors, and do they all qualify for authorship according to criteria set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors? |
12 | Did you provide the name and contact details of the corresponding author? |
13 | Did you format the references according to the journal style? |
14 | Did you follow the reporting guidelines for your study type? (https://www.equator-network.org/) |
Expert reviewer | 15 | Did you define technical terms appropriately and justify your choices of definition wherever there is lack of consensus in the field? |
16 | Did you describe your methods with enough details to make your work reproducible by independent teams? |
17 | Did you check for selection and classification biases? |
18 | Are your conclusions supported by your data? |
19 | Did you put your research into perspective considering the most recent evidence in your field? |
20 | Did you consider how you could make your article simpler and more digestible? In other words, is there any piece of information that you could move into the appendix without altering the message of your article? |
Statistical reviewer | 21 | Did you check that numbers add up and are consistently reported in the abstract, the main text, the tables, the figures, and the appendix if any? |
22 | Is your study design appropriate to answer your research question or test your hypothesis as formulated? |
23 | Did you use the right statistical test for your research question? |
24 | Did you check the conditions of application of the statistical tests or models that you used? |
| 25 | Did you report all test results according to the standards in your field? |
26 | Did you justify any change in denominator or sample size? |
27 | Did you adjust for confounders before making conclusions about associations? |
28 | Did you acknowledge any inability to adjust for known confounders (eg, when data are not available)? |
29 | Is there any risk of overadjustment? |
30 | Do you have the appropriate sample size to detect existing differences? |
31 | Did you report the performance characteristics of your diagnostic/regression/prediction tests or models? |
32 | Is it necessary to adjust your P Value for multiple comparisons? |
33 | What additional analyses (sensitivity, subgroup) could you perform to strengthen your conclusions? In other words, did you provide a compelling answer to your research question? |
Lay reviewer | 34 | Are there any jargon or unnecessary abbreviations in the abstract or the lay summary? |
35 | Have all abbreviations been properly explained? |
36 | Is there any sentence that could be rephrased to make its interpretation more straightforward? |
37 | Is there any sentence or paragraph that conveys controversial information and might generate conflicts if widely shared on social media or taken out of context? |
38 | Could the key message of the article be summarized in an easy-to-understand illustration or video? |
39 | Did you clearly outline the population to which your results are applicable? |
40 | Have you clearly outlined the limitations of your research and specified where your results do not apply? |
