What Are the Suggestions Given by Peer Reviewers in the Introduction Section of the Original Research Article?

Introduction Section Review Suggestions

The introduction section of the research article shows promise, but there are some suggestions to enhance its impact.

• Firstly, consider framing the research problem more explicitly and engagingly, outlining its relevance from the outset.
• Secondly, provide a concise overview of the field’s current state to contextualize the research objectives. Adding recent key references could support this.
• Thirdly, ensure a clear and gradual buildup to the research gap, highlighting its significance in addressing existing limitations.
• Lastly, streamline the articulation of qualitative and quantitative research questions to reflect their specific contribution. These suggestions aim to bolster the introduction’s clarity, setting a strong foundation for the study and captivating readers’ interest from the outset.

Who can be a reviewer?

A reviewer must have published at least five original research papers to understand medical writing and the peer review process. The editor invites a scholar or academician with expertise in the same topic or a well-known authority. Reviewers are asked to provide their expertise using keywords on the manuscript management website. Journal publications often have a database of potential reviewers; the editor can select reviewers using keywords. Researchers can send their curriculum vitae to specific journals and request empanelment as potential reviewers. Being a reviewer is considered an honour, privilege, and duty for researchers, and one should not refuse to review a paper if they have the expertise and can spare time to complete the review.

Some suggestions that a peer reviewer may provide for the introduction section of a manuscript include:

1. Providing a clear and concise background: The peer reviewer may suggest adding more context to the introduction to help readers understand the research question and its importance. For example, the reviewer may suggest providing a more detailed description of the problem the research aims to address.
2. Identifying the research gap: The reviewer may suggest that the author identify the literature gap and explain how their research will address it. For example, the reviewer may suggest that the author provide more context on why the research is needed and how it will contribute to the field.
3. Clarifying the research question and objectives: The peer reviewer may suggest that the author provide a clearer and more concise research question and objectives directly related to the research gap identified in the literature.
4. Providing a clear outline: The reviewer may suggest that the author provide a clear and concise outline of the manuscript’s structure, including what will be covered in each section.

Example:

A peer reviewer may comment, such as, “The introduction provides a good overview of the research topic but could benefit from more detailed background information to help readers understand the study context. Additionally, the research gap could be more clearly identified and linked to the research question and objectives. Finally, the author may want to consider providing a clearer outline of the manuscript structure to help readers navigate the paper more easily.”

• Check out our sample original research article examplesto see how the original research article sampleis structured.