Seven reasons not to be a peer reviewer - And why these reasons are wrong

Clinical Chemistry

Volumn 58, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 677-679

  Annesley, Thomas M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLICATION; SHORT SURVEY;

PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84859309075     PISSN: 00099147     EISSN: 15308561     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2012.182618     Document Type: Short Survey

References (9)

1. Gewin V. Rookie review. Nature 2011;478:275-7.
2. Evans AT. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:422-8.
3. 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.
4. Annesley TM. The title says it all. Clin Chem 2010;56:357-60.
5. Annesley TM. The abstract and the elevator talk: a tale of two summaries. Clin Chem 2010;56:521-4.
6. Edmunds LH. A gift from Anonymous. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;77:10-1.
7. Hernandez LV. Becoming a reviewer is good for you - the peer-review process. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:1159-60.
8. Tobin MJ. Rigor of peer review and the standing of a journal. Am J Respir Care Med 2002;166:1013-8.
9. Estrada C, Kalet A, Smith W, Chin MH. How to be an outstanding reviewer for the Journal of General Internal Medicine . . . and other journals. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:281-4.