European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 184–187 | Cite as

Reviewing scientific manuscripts

  • M. E. J. CurzonEmail author
  • R. E. Cleaton-Jones


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.


Scientific papers reviewing 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Further reading

  1. Black N, van Roovan S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA, 1998; 15:231–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Callaham ML and Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med, 2007; 4:e40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cohrane data base Syst Rev, 2007; 18:MR000016.Google Scholar
  4. Pyke DA. Referee a paper. In: Lock S, ED. How to do it. London, Brit Med J, 1979; 143–146.Google Scholar
  5. Roberts LW, Coverdale J, Edenharder K, Louie A. How to review a manuscript: a ‘down to earth’ approach. Acad. Pyschiatry 2004; 28:81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA, 2006; 295:314–317.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Wahner E, Godlee F, Jefferson T. How to survive peer review. London, Brit Med J Books, 2002; 13–19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leeds Dental InstituteLeedsEngland
  2. 2.University of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations