Examples from Reviewers' Comments

Inconsistencies throughout the manuscript

"Results mentions using immersion/crystallization but this method was never discussed in the methods."

Insufficient Detail About Methods Used

"The methods section does not provide sufficient detail about the process of selecting subjects for the study.  Box 1 lists several groups.  How were these groups chosen?"

"The authors mention a questionnaire in the analysis section, but do not describe the questionnaire or its purpose."

"Need to be more specific with regard to the methods.  Were these racial mixed focus groups or stratified?  How many people were in each group?  How long were the focus groups?"

"The last sentence is troubling.  It says data were merged.  Merged how?  Was there a development of an overall taxonomy that evolved from the four focus groups?"

"Additionally, there is no discussion of how the focus groups were organized.  Were the groups homogeneous or heterogeneous?  Were groups based on relevant attributes?  It would be important to know what guided these decisions and how it affected the data collection process."

"The methods used in the study are not well described. The methods should be described in a manner and at a level of detail that it would be possible for a reader to replicate the study procedures, if not the findings.  The authors provide almost no information about their sampling frame (was it strategic, how did they create the necessary diversity to support an eventually saturated model, how did they recruit the physicians. They indicate age, sex etc as variables they considered – why did they consider these important?  They provide almost no information about the semi-structured survey they used except to say they tried it on two MDs and then changed it to included open-ended questions.  It would helpful to see the survey items and to understand why it changed.  The authors provide almost no information on their analytical methods and no mention or use (or reason for not using) accepted coding strategies from grounded theory (the approach they report using).  They fail to describe any type of member-checking or any other method to test the reliability/validity of the findings (member checks, triangulation).  Ultimately, it is impossible to determine how they actually came to the conclusions that they did and there is no evidence of saturation."

Click here to return to Common Pitfalls page