KetoDiet App is free to download, try it now!

Evidence-Based Review Process

5 stars, average of 1 ratings
Updated

Evidence-Based Review ProcessShareFollow us

At Keto Diet App, we are serious about providing you with articles that are both relevant and factual, helping you to navigate a dietary approach that works for you. To allow us to deliver this, we have integrated a review process on all of the articles that we publish.

What is the Aim of our Review Process?

The below checklist will allow internal reviewers from Keto Diet App to:

  • Assess the scientific strength of published and unpublished articles
  • Ensure all claims being made are backed by proper clinical data
  • Ensure the article is balanced and fair without any commercial or other conflict of interests or overly promotional in nature

What is the KetoDiet Process Overview?

The process will be double blinded where possible meaning the names of the reviewers and authors are hidden from each other. Reviewer and author anonymity allows for impartial decisions. An article will be reviewed on the below criteria before it is signed off for publication.

Note: This double-blinded process can only be applied to new articles that have not yet been published.

Both the article and references will be reviewed to ensure scientific credibility.

Reviewing Process Overview

For an article to pass our review process, each of the boxes need to be marked with a ✅. If any of the boxes are marked with a ❌, the article needs to be returned to the author and re-submitted for a follow-up review.

If after reviewing the article, the reviewer does not feel happy that the content included is substantiated by credible evidence, the article will be returned to the author and marked "re-submit with changes".

If after reviewing the article, the reviewer does not feel happy with the article in general, i.e. the topic is misleading or not factually correct, the article will be returned to the author and marked "declined for submission".

Article Review Checklist

We use the below checklist when reviewing articles. The reviewer will place a ✅ where they feel a requirement has been met and a ❌ where they feel a requirement has not been met.

They will clearly mark their article submission as either:

  1. Article passed for submission, no changes required
  2. Article returned to author and re-submit with changes
  3. Article denied submission

When changes to an article are required, the reviewer will provide appropriate feedback and direction to the author.

When an article is denied, the reviewer will provide appropriate and detailed feedback as to the rationale for the decision made. The reviewer may be called upon to answer further follow up questions.

Article Review Checklist Questions

  • ❑  Does the article use robust data? (e.g. peer reviewed studies, academic and government guidelines or official websites)
  • ❑  Does the article include primary references where appropriate?
  • ❑  All claims have a citation and are fully supported by the source(s)? i.e. if the claim is stating positive results form a study — did the study actually conclude this?
  • ❑  Does the article contain the most up-to-date sourcing? (preferably studies should be no more than 5 years old — where plausible)
  • ❑  Does the article take into account the strengths and limitations of the reference used? i.e. observational vs RCTs
  • ❑  Does the article include a balance of different types of studies, not just resting on animal/cell or expert testimonials?
  • ❑  If the article includes studies based on low-grade evidence, does it fully disclose the limitations of this type of evidence?
  • ❑  For plagiarism — has the article appropriately adapted the text away from what the reference states while staying accurate?
  • ❑  Does the article provide a balanced argument — providing a voice for both the pros and cons of any proposed intervention?
  • ❑  Is the topic relevant and original?
  • ❑  Are the main points of the article fully covered and factual?
  • ❑  Does the article remain non-promotional in nature?
  • ❑  If needed, does the article declare any conflicts of interest or promotional ties?
  • ❑  Does the article provide a balanced conclusion with key action steps (where applicable)?
  1. Blog
  2. Evidence-Based Review Process
  1. Blog
  2. Martina Slajerova
  3. Evidence-Based Review Process
Do you like this page? Share it with your friends! 
Let us know what you think, rate this page!