Reviewing scientific manuscripts

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 184-187

  Curzon, M E J ^a   Cleaton Jones, P E ^b  

^a LEEDS DENTAL INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Reviewing; Scientific papers

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DENTAL RESEARCH; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH;

DENTAL RESEARCH; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH REPORT;

EID: 80053322527     PISSN: 18186300     EISSN: 19969805     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF03262804     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Black N, van Roovan S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA, 1998; 15:231-233.
2. Callaham ML and Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med, 2007; 4:e40.
3. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cohrane data base Syst Rev, 2007; 18:MR000016.
4. Pyke DA. Referee a paper. In: Lock S, ED. How to do it. London, Brit Med J, 1979; 143-146.
5. Roberts LW, Coverdale J, Edenharder K, Louie A. How to review a manuscript: a 'down to earth' approach. Acad. Pyschiatry, 2004; 28:81-87.
6. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA, 2006; 295:314-317.
7. Wahner E, Godlee F, Jefferson T. How to survive peer review. London, Brit Med J Books, 2002; 13-19.