How to review a paper

American Journal of Physiology - Advances in Physiology Education

Volumn 27, Issue 1-4, 2003, Pages 47-52

  Benos, Dale J ^a   Kirk, Kevin L ^a   Hall, John E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Ethics; Peer review; Publications; Reviewer responsibilities

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; RESPONSIBILITY; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE;

EID: 0347763589     PISSN: 10434046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/advan.00057.2002     Document Type: Review

References (10)

1. Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, and Callaham ML. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Ann Emerg Med 32: 310-317, 1998.
2. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, and Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 280: 231-233, 1998.
3. Caelleigh AS, Shea JA, and Penn G. Selection and qualities of reviewers. Acad Med 76: 914-916, 2001.
4. Godlee F and Jefferson T. Peer Review in Health Sciences. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1999.
5. Joint Task Force of Academic Medicine and the GEA-RIME Committee. Task force report - review criteria for research manuscripts. Acad Med 76(9), 2001.
6. Polak JF. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther 165: 685-688, 1995.
7. Siegelman SS. Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Radiology 178; 637-642, 1991.
8. Van Rooyen S, Black N, and Godlee F. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol 52: 625-629, 1999.
9. Weller AC. Editorial. Peer review in US medical journals. JAMA 263: 1344-1347, 1990.
10. Weller AC. Peer review: do studies prove its effectiveness? The Scientist October 29, 2001, p.39.