Reviewing manuscripts: tips and responsibilities

Heddle, Nancy M.; Ness, Paul M.

doi:10.1111/j.1537-2995.2009.02390.x

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some problems noted by editors included ignoring submission routes, length restrictions, deadlines for revision, required materials, and the journal's audience and goals. Failure to state a clear hypothesis, poor trial design, overgeneralizing the applicability of findings, and obtuse writing are also popular reasons for rejection [6,9,14]. The ethical code of conduct for both author and referee was discussed in a substantial number of papers reviewed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Systematic Review of Peer Review for Scientific Manuscripts

Larson

Chung

2012

Hand (New York, N,Y.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The usefulness of peer review has been expressed as a method to improve the quality of published work. However, there has been a lack of systematic reviews to date to highlight the essential themes of the peer-review process. Methods We performed a search of the English language literature published prior to October 2011 using PubMed to identify articles regarding peer review. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed a priori. Data were extracted and then analyzed for the prevalence of peer-review themes contained within the literature. Results Of the 941 articles found during our original literature search, 37 were selected for review. The majority were commentary/editorial articles. The themes in our search included the structure and process of the peer-review system, the criteria for papers, ethics, and the different forms of the peer-review process. Conclusions The criteria for submission will vary, but our systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of what reviewers expect from authors. Our systematic review also highlighted ethical considerations for both authors and reviewers during the peer-review process. Although the topic of peer review is expansive and its process may vary from journal to journal, the understanding of the themes outlined in this paper will help authors recognize how to write a more successful paper. Also, more research must be carried out to establish the efficacy of the different styles of peer review, and it would be presumptuous to draw conclusions until further research is established.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lastly, six articles (16%) discussed the process and structure of peer review to give authors insights into a journal's review methodology [3,5,14,15,38,40]. These papers discuss how referees prepare themselves to review an article and how they read the article.…”

Section: Prevalence Of Themesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Peer Review for Scientific Manuscripts

Larson

Chung

2012

Hand (New York, N,Y.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…John Wiley & Sons, Inc., is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians. Peer reviewers may request 3.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits per original manuscript being reviewed, reflecting the effort and work done in the performance of the review . Additional guidance and resources for peer reviewers are available at https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/index.html.…”

Section: Educational Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…reviewed, reflecting the effort and work done in the performance of the review. 2,3 Additional guidance and resources for peer reviewers are available at https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/ journal-reviewers/index.html. Reviewers may only claim CME credit once per manuscript.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rewarding reviewers, part II: Receiving CME credit

Citrome

2018

Int J Clin Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, we encourage reviewers to follow the guidance on how to review scientific manuscripts. 2 Once completed, reviewers simply select a checkbox indicating if they wish to claim CME credit when they submit their review in ScholarOne. The Associate Editors will then consider the quality and timeliness of the review and grant the request for credit if the review is deemed acceptable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%