TO ACCEPT OR REJECT? A GUIDE TO PEER REVIEWING OF MEDICAL JOURNAL PAPERS

Main Article Content

Thomas R Einarson
Gideon Koren

Keywords

Peer review, research design, critique, manuscript, journal, publication

Abstract

Background


Scientists and clinicians are often called upon to review papers and may need guidance to optimize their performance as reviewers.


 


Purpose


To provide guidance and insight into the peer review process and elaborate on issues relevant to journals dealing with therapeutics.


 


Methods


Issues and recommendations appearing in the literature have been identified and summarized for potential reviewers and readers of the journal.


 


Conclusions


The quality of the literature can be improved through the participation of peer reviewers. Guidance has been provided and some resources listed to assist.

Abstract 375 | PDF Downloads 107

References

1. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Ethical Considerations in the Conduct and Reporting of Research: Peer Review. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/ethical_3peer.html
2. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology submission guidelines. Available at: http://www.jptcp.com/submission-guideliness12459
3. Huston P. Information for peer reviewers. CMAJ 1994;150:1211-22.
4. Jackson JL, Srinivasan M, Rea J, Fletcher KE, Kravitz RL. The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22475. Epub 2011 Jul 25.
5. Wicherts JM, Kievit RA, Bakker M, Borsboom D. Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science. Front Comput Neurosci 2012;6:20.
6. How many journal articles have been published (ever)? Available at: http://duncan.hull.name/2010/07/15/fiftymillion/
7. Navalta JW, Lyons TS. Student peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers. Adv Physiol Educ 2010;34:170-3.
8. Freda MC, Kearney MH, Baggs JG, Broome ME, Dougherty M. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers. J Prof Nurs 2009;25:101-8.
9. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care 1966. Milbank Q 2005;83:691-729.
10. Yaffe MB. Re-reviewing peer review. Sci Signal 2009 Aug 25;2(85):eg11.
11. Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med 2010 Apr 26; 8:24.
12. Altman DG, Simera I. Responsible reporting of health research studies: transparent, complete, accurate and timely. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010;65:1-3.
13. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 2010 Mar 24;8:18.
14. Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research. Eur J Clin Invest 2010;40:35- 53.
15. EQUATOR Library for health research reporting. Available at: http://www.equatornetwork. org/resource-centre/library-of-healthresearch- reporting/

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>