Abstract
The peer review process is the current standard for assessing a manuscript’s worthiness for publication in the scientific literature and is based on the idealism, professionalism, and collegiality of the peer reviewer. Reviewers serve a critical role in ensuring the dissemination of knowledge throughout the medical profession. Peer reviewers provide fair, constructive, and knowledgeable feedback on a manuscript that improves the quality of the manuscript and aids journal editors in determining an appropriate disposition of the manuscript. Accepting an invitation to review demonstrates a willingness to contribute to the profession of medicine and the advancement of knowledge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1321–2.
Bordage G, Caelleigh AS. A tool for reviewers: “Review criteria for research manuscripts. Acad Med. 2001;76(9):904–8.
Roberts LW, Coverdale J, Edenharder K, et al. How to review a manuscript; a “down-to-earth” approach. Acad Psychiatry. 2004;28(2):81–5.
Lovejoy TI, Revenson TA, France CR. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Ann Behav Med. 2011;42:1–13.
Alexandrov AV, Hennerici MG, Norrving B. Suggestions for reviewing manuscripts. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009;28:243–6.
Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, et al. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA. 1998;280:231–3.
Goldbeck-Wood S. Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen? BMJ. 1999;318:44–5.
McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, et al. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1371–6.
Rosenfeld RM. How to review journal manuscripts. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;142(4):472–86.
McGaghie WC, Bordage G, Shea JA. Problem statement, conceptual framework, and research question. Acad Med. 2001;76(9):923–4.
McGaghie WC, Bordage G, Crandall S, et al. Research design. Acad Med. 2001;76(9):929–30.
Levine AM, Heckman JD, Hensinger RN. The art and science of reviewing manuscripts for orthopaedic journals: part II. Optimizing the manuscript: practical hints for improving the quality of reviews. Instr Course Lect. 2004;53:689–97.
Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA. 1999;281(12):1110–1.
Regehr G. Presentation of results. Acad Med. 2001;76(9):940–2.
Christenbery TL. Manuscript peer review: a guide for advanced practice nurses. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2011;23(1):15–22.
Salasche SJ. How to “peer review” a medical journal manuscript. Dermatol Surg. 1997;23(6):423–8.
Hoppin FG. How I review an original scientific article. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166:1019–23.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Heinrich, T.W. (2013). How to Review a Manuscript. In: Roberts, L. (eds) The Academic Medicine Handbook. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5693-3_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5693-3_27
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5692-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5693-3
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)