Literature DB >> 20740129

Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals.

Gus M Garmel1.   

Abstract

Writing for publication is a complex task. For many professionals, producing a well-executed manuscript conveying one's research, ideas, or educational wisdom is challenging. Authors have varying emotions related to the process of writing for scientific publication. Although not studied, a relationship between an author's enjoyment of the writing process and the product's outcome is highly likely. As with any skill, practice generally results in improvements. Literature focused on preparing manuscripts for publication and the art of reviewing submissions exists. Most journals guard their reviewers' anonymity with respect to the manuscript review process. This is meant to protect them from direct or indirect author demands, which may occur during the review process or in the future. It is generally accepted that author identities are masked in the peer-review process. However, the concept of anonymity for reviewers has been debated recently; many editors consider it problematic that reviewers are not held accountable to the public for their decisions. The review process is often arduous and underappreciated, one reason why biomedical journals acknowledge editors and frequently recognize reviewers who donate their time and expertise in the name of science. This article describes essential elements of a submitted manuscript, with the hopes of improving scientific writing. It also discusses the review process within the biomedical literature, the importance of reviewers to the scientific process, responsibilities of reviewers, and qualities of a good review and reviewer. In addition, it includes useful insights to individuals who read and interpret the medical literature.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 20740129      PMCID: PMC2912703          DOI: 10.7812/TPP/09-088

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perm J        ISSN: 1552-5767


  25 in total

Review 1.  The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  D G Altman; K F Schulz; D Moher; M Egger; F Davidoff; D Elbourne; P C Gøtzsche; T Lang
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2001-04-17       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials.

Authors:  Michael L Callaham; Robert K Knopp; E John Gallagher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-06-05       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Judging the judges: the role of journal editors.

Authors:  J G Ray
Journal:  QJM       Date:  2002-12

4.  Peer review: integral to Science and indispensable to Annals.

Authors:  Christine Laine; Cynthia Mulrow
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-12-16       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Sara Schroter; Nick Black; Stephen Evans; James Carpenter; Fiona Godlee; Richard Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-03-02

6.  The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.

Authors:  J F Polak
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  F Godlee; C R Gale; C N Martyn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts?

Authors:  S Goldbeck-Wood
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-01-10

9.  The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews.

Authors:  A T Evans; R A McNutt; S W Fletcher; R H Fletcher
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Content and communication: how can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?

Authors:  Karen Shashok
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2008-01-31       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  5 in total

1.  A proton nuclear magnetic resonance-based metabonomics study of metabolic profiling in immunoglobulin a nephropathy.

Authors:  Weiguo Sui; Liping Li; Wenti Che; Zuo Guimai; Jiejing Chen; Wuxian Li; Yong Dai
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.365

2.  Biomedical journal editing: elements of success.

Authors:  Armen Yuri Gasparyan; Lilit Ayvazyan; George D Kitas
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.351

3.  Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals.

Authors:  Allison Hirst; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  Peer Review: Publication's Gold Standard.

Authors:  Kelley D Mayden
Journal:  J Adv Pract Oncol       Date:  2012-03

5.  Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals.

Authors:  Armen Yuri Gasparyan; George D Kitas
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.351

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.