Major mistakes in scientific medical writing based on manuscripts’ reviews


Sarra Melki
Donia Ben Hassine
Dhekra Chebil
Youssef Zanina
Helmi Ben Saad
Ahmed Ben Abdelaziz


Introduction: 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.

Aim: To describe mistakes encountered while peer reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to “La Tunisie Médicale” journal.

Method: 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.

Conclusion: 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.


Peer Review , Medical Writing, Manuscripts, Medical as Topic, Writing style , Tunisia



  1. Castelo-Branco C. Peer review? No thanks! Climacteric J Int Menopause Soc. 2023;26(1):3–4.
  2. Deslandes SF, Silva AAM da. Peer review: demand-side crisis or change of values? Cad Saúde Pública. 2013;29:421–3.
  3. Brown MEL, Chan TM, Gottlieb M, Patino GA, Roberts LW. Appreciation for Peer Review and Peer Reviewers in Academic Medicine. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll. 2023;98(1):1–2.
  4. Fernandez-Llimos F, Salgado TM, Tonin FS, Pharmacy Practice 2019 peer reviewers. How many manuscripts should I peer review per year? Pharm Pract. 2020;18(1):1804.
  5. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Jan 31]. Available from:
  6. Busse CE, Anderson EW, Endale T, Smith YR, Kaniecki M, Shannon C, et al. Strengthening research capacity: a systematic review of manuscript writing and publishing interventions for researchers in low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7(2):e008059.
  7. Barroga E, Mitoma H. Improving Scientific Writing Skills and Publishing Capacity by Developing University-Based Editing System and Writing Programs. J Korean Med Sci. 2019;34(1):e9.
  8. La Tunisie Médicale [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Feb 1]. Available from:
  9. National Library of Medicine. La Tunisie médicale. NLM Catalog, NCBI [Internet]. [cited 2023 Feb 28]. Available from:
  10. Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Tunisie Medicale [Internet]. [cited 2023 Mar 1]. Available from:
  11. Sharma S. Professional medical writing support: The need of the day. Perspect Clin Res. 2018;9(3):111–2.
  12. Cuschieri S. The CONSORT statement. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019;13(Suppl 1):S27–30.
  13. Equator network. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 Feb 11]. Available from:
  14. STROBE. STROBE Checklists [Internet]. STROBE. [cited 2023 Feb 11]. Available from:
  15. Ben Salem K, Ben Abdelaziz A. Conduct a multivariate analysis by logistic regression. Tunis Med. 2020;98(7):537–42.
  16. Ben Abdelaziz A, Ben Hassine D, Chebil D, Nouira S, Ben Abdelaziz A, Melki S, et al. Descriptive Statistics in Health Sciences. Tunis Med. 2021;99(12):1117–25.
  17. Barhoumi T, Ben Abdelaziz A, Sakly N, Ben Salem K, Ben Abdelaziz A. Methodological sheet n° 3: And Allah… created variability. Tunis Med. 2020;98(3):191–205.
  18. Serhier Z, Bendahhou K, Ben Abdelaziz A, Bennani MO. Methodological sheet n°1: How to calculate the size of a sample for an observational study? Tunis Med. 2020;98(1):1–7.
  19. Ben Abdelaziz A, Chebil D, Nouira S, Mkacher H, Yahia F, Ben Abdelaziz A, et al. Successful Bibliographic Research on PubMed. Tunis Med. 2020;98(5):370–7.
  20. Ben Abdelaziz A, Sakly N, Melki S, Nouira S, Ben Abdelaziz A, Babba O, et al. Successfully develop a list of authors of a scientific manuscript. Tunis Med. 2021;99(10):825–31.
  21. Ben Abdelaziz A, Sakly N, Melki S, Nouira S, Ben Abdelaziz A, Babba O, et al. The 5x5 approach in scientific biomedical writing. Tunis Med. 2021;99(6):585–600.
  22. Ben Saad H. Scientific Medical Writing in Practice: the «IMR@D®» Format. Tunis Med. 2019;97(3):407–25.
  23. Ben Saad H. Scientific Medical Writing in Practice: How to Succeed the Writing Style? Tunis Med. 2019;97(2):273–85.
  24. Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll. 2001;76(9):889–96.
  25. Ezeala C, Nweke I, Ezeala M. Common Errors in Manuscripts Submitted to Medical Science Journals. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2013;3(3):376–9.
  26. Bahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Zadeh-Vakili A, Hosseinpanah F, Ghasemi A. The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Results. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2019;In Press.
  27. American Psychology Association. Table setup [Internet]. APA Style. 2021 [cited 2023 Feb 15]. Available from:
  28. Bahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Kashfi K, Ghasemi A. The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Citation. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2020;18(2):e102622.
  29. Corporation for Digital Scholarship. Zotero Your personal research assistant [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Feb 23]. Available from:
  30. Bryan KA, Ozcan Y, Sampat B. In-text patent citations: A user’s guide. Res Policy. 2020;49(4):103946.
  31. Phyo EM, Lwin T, Tun HP, Oo ZZ, Mya KS, Silverman H. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding plagiarism of postgraduate students in Myanmar. Account Res. 2022;1–20.
  32. ChatGPT [Internet]. [cited 2023 Feb 28]. Available from: