A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 185, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 848-854

  Provenzale, James M ^a   Stanley, Robert J ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b University of Alabama at Birmingham   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITOR; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; REFERENCE DATABASE; REVIEW; ARTICLE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; STANDARD;

HUMANS; MANUSCRIPTS, MEDICAL; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS; PUBLISHING;

EID: 29844444319     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0782     Document Type: Review

References (11)

1. Hoppin FG Jr. How I review an original scientific article. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166:1019-1023
2. Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE. How to review a paper. Adv Physiol Educ 2003; 27:47-52
3. Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001; 76:889-896
4. Squires BP. Biomedical manuscripts: what editors want from authors and peer-reviewers. Can Med Assoc J 1989; 141:17-19
5. Owen R. Reader bias. JAMA 1982; 247:2533-2534
6. Roberts LW, Coverdale J, Edenharder K, Louie A. How to review a manuscript: a "down-to-earth" approach. Acad Psychiatry 2004; 28:81-87
7. Sylvia LM, Herbel JL. Manuscript peer review: a guide for health care professionals. Pharmacotherapy 2001; 21:395-404
8. McGaghie WC, Bordage G, Shea J. Problem statement, conceptual framework, and research question. Acad Med 2001; 76:923-924
9. Regehr G. Presentation of results. Acad Med 2001; 76:940-942
10. Chew FS. Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR. AJR 1991; 156:627-632
11. Shea JA. Reviewer's recommendation. Acad Med 2001; 76:952-953