How to review a manuscript: A "down-to-earth" approach

Academic Psychiatry

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 81-87

  Roberts, Laura Weiss ^a   Coverdale, John ^a   Edenharder, Kristin ^a   Louie, Alan ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; EDITORIAL; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PEER REVIEW; PSYCHIATRY; QUALITY CONTROL;

AUTHORSHIP; CURRICULUM; DECISION MAKING; EDITORIAL POLICIES; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, GRADUATE; FACULTY, MEDICAL; HUMANS; MANUSCRIPTS, MEDICAL; PEER REVIEW; PSYCHIATRY;

EID: 4043063496     PISSN: 10429670     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ap.28.2.81     Document Type: Editorial

References (8)

1. Bordage G: Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001; 76:889-896
2. Hoppin FG: How I review an original scientific article. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166:1019-1023
3. Bordage G, Caelleigh AS: How to read "review criteria for research manuscripts." Acad Med 2001; 76:908-909
4. Owen R: Reader bias. JAMA 1982; 247:2533-2534
5. Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N: Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 1998; 280:234-237
6. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN: Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports.: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998; 280:237-240
7. AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D and the PEER investigators: Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998; 280:240-242
8. Roberts LW: On the centrality of peer review. Acad Psychiatry 2002; 26:221-222