Guidelines for your review
The following guidelines are modified from guidelines for reviewers of the European Journal of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (EJMID): Permission was obtained from the journal to reproduce this information
Write two to three pages on the background and contents of the paper. This section should cover the introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion sections. You may either write a section under each of these sections or write an overall “summary” of the contents of the paper, provided all sections are mentioned in your report. As this paper is written primarily for microbiologists working in medical microbiology, there may be some sections that are not explained in the detail that you need for your own understanding. In that case, go to the literature and fill in the gaps. Additional references used should be cited in your text by number and listed in the reference section, according to the format of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM). Use the referencing format used in that paper.
The aim of this section is to show the examiner that you have understood the purpose, need for and content of the paper.
Present a critical review of the article. The following points will be helpful in the review: It is not essential that you answer all of these questions: or even that you write your review in the order set out below, but use these points as a guide and check list.
* How original is this paper? For example, is it simply applying the methods used in another study to a new situation or is the idea completely novel?
* How important is this study to medical microbiology?
* Are there any sections of the paper that are too long and could be shortened?
* Is the writing clear, simple and concise? Is there any incorrect use of bacterial names?
* Does the title reflect the content of the paper? Is it clear and an appropriate length?
* Does the abstract outline the aims of the study, main methods, results and conclusions?
* Does the introduction state the research question to be addressed?
* Is sufficient background information provided for readers to understand the question?
5. Materials and methods
* Are the methods appropriate to the research question/s being addressed?
* Are the methods described in sufficient detail to be repeated by another microbiologist? Is any important information missing?
* Are there any well-known methods that are given in detail, but could be replaced by a reference?
* Have references been provided for all the methods, except new ones developed by the authors?
* Have the authors presented only their own results in this section? Any comparison with the results of other scientists does not belong in the results section.
* Are there any results in the text that would be better presented in a table or figure?
* Is there any material presented in a table or figure that would be better presented in the text?
* Is there any repetition of results in text AND a table or figure?
* Do you agree with the author’s interpretation of results?
* Have the authors clearly distinguished between their own results and the results of others?
* Are there any negative findings in the results that could be important but have not been discussed?
* Have the authors adequately discussed their results and conclusions in relation to the results of other investigators?
* Are the author’s conclusions acceptable and is there sufficient evidence for the conclusions they have drawn?
* Check that all statements in the text that require a reference are properly referenced.
* Are there any references that are less relevant to the study and could be omitted?
9. Tables and figures
* Do all tables and figures have complete legends so that they can be understood without reference to the text?
* Could any of the tables and figures be omitted or simplified?
* Comment on the design and quality of the tables and figures