How to review a paper.

@article{Benos2003HowTR,
  title={How to review a paper.},
  author={D. Benos and K. Kirk and John E. Hall},
  journal={Advances in physiology education},
  year={2003},
  volume={27 1-4},
  pages={
          47-52
        }
}
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… Expand

Tables and Topics from this paper

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 16 REFERENCES
The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
  • J. Polak
  • Medicine
  • AJR. American journal of roentgenology
  • 1995
Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.
Peer Review in Health Sciences
Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Special report.
Editorial peer review in US medical journals.
Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts.
ADVANCES IN PHYSIOLOGY EDUCATION – JUNE
  • ADVANCES IN PHYSIOLOGY EDUCATION – JUNE
  • 2003
Clear statement to editor as to the appropriateness and priority
  • M arch 7,
  • 2003
Joint Task Force of Academic Medicine and the GEA- RIME Committee. Task force report—review criteria for research manuscripts
  • Acad Med
  • 2001
...
1
2
...