1995, Biomedical Engineering Society
b. Adequacy of data, and of statistical assessment, with respect to the conclusions drawn.
b. References: Are more used than necessary? (30 should be adequate for most papers.) Have any key references been omitted? Are there any discernible inaccuracies that can be queried without recourse to the original paper?
c. Data: Is there duplication in text, figures, and tables? Are the data deposited with the National Auxiliary Publications Service or available at an FTP site?
d. Units of measure, abbreviations, symbols: Are guidelines followed? Are all symbols defined, described, and assigned proper units?
e. Tables: Can they be simplified or condensed? Should any be omitted or deposited with the National Auxiliary Publications Service?
f. Figures: Are all essential? Are they artistically appropriate and sharp in contrast? Is lettering proportionate to size of the figure? Will figures be understandable after reduction in size? Are legends complete so that the meaning of the figure is cl ear?
g. Analysis: Can it be reproduced by a reader? Are the computer programs archived and available to the review and readers?
h. Titles: Should be specific, with no superfluous or unnecessary words (total < 116 characters). Expressions such as ``Studies on...,'' ``Further investigations of...,'' are not acceptable.
i. Abstract: Should be about 200 ``standard'' words long. In one paragraph: define problem, state strategy, define methods, describe results, conclude and state importance
j. Disclaimers of responsibility: Are not permitted.
Quality Rating definition: A rating scale based on your personal opinion as to 1)the quality of the experimental and analytical research; and 2) the quality of presentation (language and format).
IF REPORTING BY E-MAIL TO abme@nsr.bioeng.washington.edu, MAKE SURE THAT MS#, ETC., AND ALL BOXES ON FORM ``REVIEWER'S SUMMARY TO EDITOR'' ARE REPRESENTED IN YOUR REPORT.
Back to the
Annals Home Page
1995, Biomedical Engineering Society