How to review a paper.

  title={How to review a paper.},
  author={D. Benos and K. L. Kirk and J. E. Hall},
  journal={Advances in physiology education},
  volume={27 1-4},
  • D. Benos, K. L. Kirk, J. E. Hall
  • Published 2003
  • Psychology, Medicine
  • Advances in physiology education
  • 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… CONTINUE READING

    Tables and Topics from this paper.

    Explore Further: Topics Discussed in This Paper

    The ups and downs of peer review.
    • 197
    • PDF
    Ethics and scientific publication.
    • 103
    • PDF
    Academic Writing and Publishing: A Practical Handbook
    • 127
    The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature
    • 52
    Reviewing scientific manuscripts: how much statistical knowledge should a reviewer really know?
    • 30
    • PDF
    Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals.
    • 20
    • PDF
    On the value of being a journal reviewer.
    • 11
    • PDF


    Publications referenced by this paper.
    What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?
    • 234
    • PDF
    Peer Review in Health Sciences
    • 257
    • PDF
    Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Special report.
    • 67
    • PDF
    Editorial peer review in US medical journals.
    • 40
    • 2003
    Clear statement to editor as to the appropriateness and priority
    • 2003
    Joint Task Force of Academic Medicine and the GEA- RIME Committee. Task force report—review criteria for research manuscripts
    • 2001