Finding a new generation of spies and manuscript reviewers

Laboratory Investigation

Volumn 93, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 1262-1264

  Ketcham, Catherine M ^a   Hardy, Robert W ^b   Rubin, Brian P ^c   Siegal, Gene P ^b  

^a United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology   (United States)

^b University of Alabama at Birmingham   (United States)

^c LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

manuscript review; peer review; reviewer training

Indexed keywords

CAREER; CONFERENCE PAPER; EDITOR; EMPLOYEE; GOVERNMENT; GRADUATE STUDENT; HUMAN; LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL STUDENT; PATHOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIST; STANDARD; STATISTICS; STUDENT; TRAINING; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; STANDARDS; VOCATIONAL EDUCATION;

EDUCATION, PROFESSIONAL; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW;

EID: 84888365506     PISSN: 00236837     EISSN: 15300307     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/labinvest.2013.125     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (4)

1. Houry D, Green S, Callaham M. Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial. BMC Med Educ 2012;12:83.
2. Callaham ML, Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med 2007;4:e40.
3. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, et al. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998;280:231.
4. Neill US. How to write an effective referee report. J Clin Invest 2009;119:1058.