Literature DB >> 12760840

How to review a paper.

Dale J Benos1, Kevin L Kirk, John E Hall.   

Abstract

Most scientists acquire their training in manuscript review not through instruction but by actually doing it. Formal training in manuscript analysis is rarely, if ever, provided. Editors usually choose reviewers because of expertise in a given subject area and availability. If an individual repeatedly submits bad reviews, it is likely that that person will not be asked to review a manuscript again. Being invited to review a manuscript is an honor, not only because you are being recognized for your eminence in a particular area of research but also because of the responsibility and service you provide to the journal and scientific community. The purpose of this article is to define how best to peer review an article. We will stipulate several principles of peer review and discuss some of the main elements of a good manuscript review, the basic responsibilities of a reviewer, and the rewards and responsibilities that accompany this process. Proper reviewer conduct is essential for making the peer review process valuable and the journal trustworthy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12760840     DOI: 10.1152/advan.00057.2002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Physiol Educ        ISSN: 1043-4046            Impact factor:   2.288


  19 in total

1.  Social influence and peer review: Why traditional peer review is no longer adapted, and how it should evolve.

Authors:  Daniel Fisher; Nikolaos Parisis
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2015-11-11       Impact factor: 8.807

2.  A guide to reviewing manuscripts.

Authors:  Greg R Alexander
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2005-03

3.  Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: an exploratory study.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Christina Gutierrez-Ford; Shyamal Peddada
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2008-03-01       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Peer review and journal impact factor: the two pillars of contemporary medical publishing.

Authors:  S Triaridis; A Kyrgidis
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 0.471

5.  Editors' Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development.

Authors:  Kristin K Janke; Andrew S Bzowyckyj; Andrew P Traynor
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.047

6.  Reviews, reviewers and reviewing.

Authors:  Ancuţa Zazgyva; Elizaveta Kon; Cyril Mauffrey; Andreas F Mavrogenis; Marius M Scarlat
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay.

Authors:  J Lotriet Cornelius
Journal:  Australas Med J       Date:  2012-01-31

Review 8.  How to Review a Manuscript.

Authors:  Joseph A Hill
Journal:  J Electrocardiol       Date:  2016-01-09       Impact factor: 1.438

9.  Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals.

Authors:  Gus M Garmel
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2010

10.  Peer review: Heart and soul of scientific publication.

Authors:  Anil K Jain
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.