Literature DB >> 21806901

Reviewing scientific manuscripts.

M E J Curzon1, P E Cleaton-Jones.   

Abstract

AIM: To provide guidance on reviewing scientific manuscripts for publication. REVIEW: Scientific peer review is possibly one of the most important tasks a scientist is asked to do. It carries a great responsibility and needs to be conscientiously and thoroughly carried out. It is most important that a reviewer decides very quickly whether to undertake a review and if so to complete the task. It must at all times be objective, as positive as possible and seen as contributing to the advancement of our knowledge. This review provides suggestions as to best practice in reviewing a scientific manuscript in dentistry. The various aspects of importance: accepting or declining a review, objectivity, approaches to reading and taking notes, assessment of methods, validity and reproducibility of results and evaluating a discussion, are covered in detail and the standards that are required considered. Suggestions are made as to how a review should be reported.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21806901     DOI: 10.1007/bf03262804

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Paediatr Dent        ISSN: 1818-6300


  5 in total

1.  How to review a manuscript: a "down-to-earth" approach.

Authors:  Laura Weiss Roberts; John Coverdale; Kristin Edenharder; Alan Louie
Journal:  Acad Psychiatry       Date:  2004

2.  Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.

Authors:  Sara Schroter; Leanne Tite; Andrew Hutchings; Nick Black
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-01-18       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?

Authors:  N Black; S van Rooyen; F Godlee; R Smith; S Evans
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 4.  Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies.

Authors:  T Jefferson; M Rudin; S Brodney Folse; F Davidoff
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-04-18

5.  The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality.

Authors:  Michael L Callaham; John Tercier
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 11.069

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.