JAREV
Academy / Peer review

Research & publishing · First learning module

Peer review of scientific manuscripts

A structured approach to a review that is methodologically sound, fair to authors, and helpful to editors.

Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology focus Living learning notes · 20 Oct 2026

Peer review involves more than identifying weaknesses. The central question is whether the methods and evidence support the claims the authors make—and what changes would allow readers to judge the work accurately.

1. Understand the journal

The Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology (Revista Colombiana de Anestesiología) describes a double-anonymized peer-review process, typically involving at least two independent subject reviewers after editorial screening. The editorial team makes the publication decision; an individual reviewer provides an assessment, not the final verdict.

Before accepting an invitation, check the journal's current instructions, your expertise, possible conflicts of interest, and the deadline. The journal's guidance and ethical policies are the authoritative source, rather than this independent tutorial.

2. A practical review workflow

01 · Before acceptingCan I evaluate the question and methods fairly, meet the deadline, and preserve confidentiality? If not, decline promptly or explain my limits to the editor.
02 · First reading: understand the argumentIdentify the research question, population, design, primary outcome, main finding, and conclusion. Note the paper's potential contribution without yet line-editing it.
03 · Second reading: test the methodsExamine selection and measurement, comparison groups, bias, confounding, sample-size rationale, statistical analysis, missing data, ethical approval, and consistency between protocols, outcomes, results, and conclusions—as appropriate for the study design.
04 · Check reporting, not just resultsUse a study-specific reporting guideline to spot omissions (for example, CONSORT for trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews). A reporting checklist is not a substitute for judging validity.
05 · Write the reviewBegin with a concise summary and overall appraisal, then list major issues affecting interpretation and minor issues of clarity or presentation. Make comments specific, courteous, and actionable; separate essential revisions from optional improvements.
06 · Communicate with the editorSubmit through the journal system. Use confidential comments to the editor for matters that should not appear in author-facing feedback, following the journal's instructions. The editor decides on the manuscript.

3. Questions to use on the next paper

  • Does the research question matter to patients, clinicians, or scientific understanding?
  • Does the study design allow the authors to answer it?
  • Are outcomes, analyses, and uncertainty described transparently?
  • Could bias, confounding, or selective reporting change the interpretation?
  • Do the conclusions go beyond the actual findings?
  • Which requested revisions would materially improve the manuscript?

4. Confidentiality, conflicts, and AI

Unpublished manuscripts are confidential. Do not post screenshots, identifiable details, datasets, or review content publicly. Declare competing interests and avoid using ideas obtained from a confidential submission.

Before using AI to assist with reviewing, check the journal's specific policy and obtain permission as required. The ICMJE states that reviewers must not upload confidential submitted material into AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured without the requisite permission; reviewers remain accountable for their judgments.

Educational examples only. Future case-based review exercises should use invented manuscripts, openly published examples where reuse is permitted, or material explicitly authorized for teaching—not confidential submissions.

5. Next lessons to develop

  • Recognizing methodological problems in randomized and observational studies.
  • Writing major and minor comments with constructive examples.
  • Appraising statistics without overstepping one's expertise.
  • Creating a short narrated review tutorial and a bilingual Spanish–English summary.

Primary references

  1. Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology — Instructions for authors and peer-review policy.
  2. Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology — Editorial, legal and ethical policies.
  3. COPE — Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.
  4. ICMJE — Responsibilities in peer review.
  5. ICMJE — Use of AI by reviewers.
  6. EQUATOR Network — Reporting guideline toolkits.
← Return to the Academy