HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (9) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Benos, D. J. Articles by Hall, J. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Benos, D. J. Articles by Hall, J. E.

A PERSONAL VIEW

HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER

¹ Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama 35294
² Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi 39216

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.

Key words: publications; ethics; peer review; reviewer responsibilities

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. J. Benos, E. Bashari, J. M. Chaves, A. Gaggar, N. Kapoor, M. LaFrance, R. Mans, D. Mayhew, S. McGowan, A. Polter, et al. The ups and downs of peer review Advan Physiol Educ, June 1, 2007; 31(2): 145 - 152. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. Provenzale and R. J. Stanley A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. J. Nucl. Med. Technol., June 1, 2006; 34(2): 92 - 99. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. Provenzale and R. J. Stanley A Systematic Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2005; 185(4): 848 - 854. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Benos, J. Fabres, J. Farmer, J. P. Gutierrez, K. Hennessy, D. Kosek, J. H. Lee, D. Olteanu, T. Russell, F. Shaikh, et al. Ethics and scientific publication Advan Physiol Educ, June 1, 2005; 29(2): 59 - 74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Kristensen and T. Hansen Statistical analyses of repeated measures in physiological research: a tutorial Advan Physiol Educ, March 1, 2004; 28(1): 2 - 14. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]