PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Peer review is a crucial process in ensuring the quality and accuracy of scientific research. It allows experts in the field to assess manuscripts submitted for publication and provide feedback to authors to improve their work.
OBJECTIVE: To describe mistakes encountered while peer reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to \"La Tunisie Médicale\" journal.
METHODS: This was a bibliometric study of research manuscripts submitted to \"La Tunisie Médicale\" and reviewed during 2022. The data collected included the type of the manuscripts and the number of reviews conducted per manuscript. The study also identified variables related to writing mistakes encountered during the peer review process.
RESULTS: A total of 155 manuscripts (68% original articles) were peer reviewed and 245 reviews were delivered, by two reviewers. Out of 62 mistakes detected, 21% concerned the results section. In 60% of the manuscripts, the keywords used were not MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. The introduction lacked in-text citations in 30% of the reviewed manuscripts, while the method section did not have a clear study framework (27%). The two major mistakes detected in the results section were the misuse of abbreviations in tables/figures, and the non-respect of the scientific nomenclature of tables/figures with respectively 39% and 19% of manuscripts.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified 62 mistakes while reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to \"La Tunisie Médicale\" journal. Scholars can benefit from participation in scientific writing seminars and the use of a safety checklist for scientific medical writing to avoid basic mistakes.
OBJECTIVE: To describe mistakes encountered while peer reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to \"La Tunisie Médicale\" journal.
METHODS: This was a bibliometric study of research manuscripts submitted to \"La Tunisie Médicale\" and reviewed during 2022. The data collected included the type of the manuscripts and the number of reviews conducted per manuscript. The study also identified variables related to writing mistakes encountered during the peer review process.
RESULTS: A total of 155 manuscripts (68% original articles) were peer reviewed and 245 reviews were delivered, by two reviewers. Out of 62 mistakes detected, 21% concerned the results section. In 60% of the manuscripts, the keywords used were not MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. The introduction lacked in-text citations in 30% of the reviewed manuscripts, while the method section did not have a clear study framework (27%). The two major mistakes detected in the results section were the misuse of abbreviations in tables/figures, and the non-respect of the scientific nomenclature of tables/figures with respectively 39% and 19% of manuscripts.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified 62 mistakes while reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to \"La Tunisie Médicale\" journal. Scholars can benefit from participation in scientific writing seminars and the use of a safety checklist for scientific medical writing to avoid basic mistakes.
摘要：
背景：同行评审是确保科学研究质量和准确性的关键过程。它允许该领域的专家评估提交出版的手稿，并向作者提供反馈以改进他们的工作。
目的：描述同行评审提交给“LaTuniseiesMédicale”杂志的科学手稿时遇到的错误。
方法：这是对提交给“LaTuniseMédicale”的研究手稿的文献计量研究，并在2022年进行了审查。收集的数据包括手稿的类型和每篇手稿进行的评论数量。该研究还确定了与同行评审过程中遇到的写作错误相关的变量。
结果：共有155篇手稿（68％的原始文章）进行了同行评审，并交付了245篇评论，两个审稿人。在检测到的62个错误中，21%关注结果部分。在60%的手稿中，使用的关键词不是MeSH(医学主题词)术语.在30％的审阅手稿中，引言缺乏文本引用，而方法部分没有明确的研究框架(27%)。结果部分发现的两个主要错误是滥用表格/数字中的缩写，以及不尊重表格/数字的科学命名法，分别占手稿的39%和19%。
结论：这项研究在审查提交给“LaTuniseMédicale”杂志的科学手稿时发现了62个错误。学者可以从参加科学写作研讨会和使用科学医学写作安全清单中受益，以避免基本错误。
目的：描述同行评审提交给“LaTuniseiesMédicale”杂志的科学手稿时遇到的错误。
方法：这是对提交给“LaTuniseMédicale”的研究手稿的文献计量研究，并在2022年进行了审查。收集的数据包括手稿的类型和每篇手稿进行的评论数量。该研究还确定了与同行评审过程中遇到的写作错误相关的变量。
结果：共有155篇手稿（68％的原始文章）进行了同行评审，并交付了245篇评论，两个审稿人。在检测到的62个错误中，21%关注结果部分。在60%的手稿中，使用的关键词不是MeSH(医学主题词)术语.在30％的审阅手稿中，引言缺乏文本引用，而方法部分没有明确的研究框架(27%)。结果部分发现的两个主要错误是滥用表格/数字中的缩写，以及不尊重表格/数字的科学命名法，分别占手稿的39%和19%。
结论：这项研究在审查提交给“LaTuniseMédicale”杂志的科学手稿时发现了62个错误。学者可以从参加科学写作研讨会和使用科学医学写作安全清单中受益，以避免基本错误。
