Key Paper Evaluation: Expert Opinion

expert-opinion-logoWord limit: The word limit for Key Paper Evaluations is 1,000-1,500 words (not including summary, keywords and references).

Every article must contain:

Title: Should be concise but informative, including the drug and therapeutic indication. Titles should not contain brand names

Authors’ names and addresses: Including address, academic qualifications and job titles of all authors, as well as telephone number, fax number and email address of the author for correspondence on a separate cover sheet as the peer reviewers will be blinded to the authors’ identity. Please note that only the address of the first author of the article will appear on Medline/PubMed, not necessarily the corresponding author.

Abstract (maximum 200 words)

Body of the evaluation:

Introduction: The paper under discussion must be introduced and referenced as Reference [1]. The scientific and/or commercial rationale behind the paper is presented, giving some perspective on the information disclosed, placing it in context with previous research in the same area and indicating the relative importance of this new work. Authors may highlight other contemporary papers, which have relevance to the main paper; these may support or conflict the results. It is essential that a critical stand is taken when writing.

  • Results from the paper: Comment on the extent and quality of the trials, how elegantly they were performed. Quote the number of patients, criteria for selection, doses used, route of administration, adverse effects and so on as appropriate.
  • Significance of the results: Comment on the claims made in the authors’ discussion section. Do the results look promising for having an effect on that field of pharmacotherapy? How is this paper going to change treatment practice in the field? Or is the paper the evidence for a significance theory?

Expert opinion (200-500 words): Should also contain your opinion of the developments; is the paper going to affect future research? Is this treatment likely to become standard practice? If not, indicate why you think the paper is nevertheless of interest. Give your opinion on the developments that you have discussed in the article. Comparative assessment is encouraged. When evaluating the paper, the authors should place emphasis on the therapeutic significance and possibly compare this to other therapies in the same area.

References: A maximum of 10 references is suggested. Ensure that all key work relevant to the topic under discussion is cited in the text and listed in the bibliography. Reference to unpublished data should be kept to a minimum and authors must obtain a signed letter of permission from cited persons to use unpublished results or personal communications in the manuscript.

Figures and tables: If necessary; only one of each is permitted. For further information on tables and figures, please see our formatting guide.