Document Detail

Suggestions for reviewing manuscripts.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  19602875     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
BACKGROUND: Scientific reviewing is a voluntary process to determine if a manuscript deserves publication. REVIEW MEANS: Responsibly Evaluate, Verify and Improve the manuscript, Educate the authors and editors, and Weigh your expert opinion against the submitted work. Provide your review in a respectful, unbiased and timely manner.
REVIEW METHODS: Make sure editors know about your willingness to review and your particular area(s) of expertise. If you find yourself in a conflict of interest, decline to participate in reviewing. If you accept, complete reviews on time. Determine and rate (1) the methodological validity, (2) originality, (3) significance of findings, (4) the style and clarity of presentation and (5) the findings' interest to the readership of the journal for which you are asked to review a manuscript. Specifically evaluate (6) if the results support any claims or conclusions made and, most importantly, (7) if the abstract correctly reflects the full content of a manuscript. Summarize your review in specific comments to the authors. Make recommendations whether to accept, revise or reject the manuscript to the editor only.
REVIEW RESULTS: Start with a brief summary of the manuscript's subject, strengths and key findings/claims. Present your specific criticisms and suggestions in numbered lists for the authors to address. Never use demeaning and offensive words or sarcasm since, in the first place, this reflects upon your own ethics and integrity as well as upon the journal's. Use a constructive tone, and if you see any deficiencies, educate the authors in a respectful manner so that, even if a manuscript is rejected, they will learn from you, improve the manuscript or conduct a better study in the future. Also include ratings from 1 to 7 in your comments to the authors, as far as they are relevant and may explain your final decision.
CONCLUSIONS: Judge others as you would like to be judged yourself. We hope these suggestions serve to help new reviewers and refresh the willingness of battle-hardened veterans to continuously serve the medical literature.
Andrei V Alexandrov; Michael G Hennerici; Bo Norrving
Related Documents :
11667635 - Recent reviews. 42.
10182185 - The red blood cell utilization review experience.
20714295 - Photochemistry of flavonoids.
6696025 - Argon laser treatment of the ciliary processes in aphakic glaucoma with flat anterior c...
18833065 - A case of difficult pyoderma gangrenosum diagnosis. case report.
6491365 - Rocky mountain spotted fever: clinical, laboratory, and epidemiological features of 262...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2009-07-14
Journal Detail:
Title:  Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland)     Volume:  28     ISSN:  1421-9786     ISO Abbreviation:  Cerebrovasc. Dis.     Publication Date:  2009  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2009-08-12     Completed Date:  2009-10-23     Revised Date:  2012-09-10    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9100851     Medline TA:  Cerebrovasc Dis     Country:  Switzerland    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  243-6     Citation Subset:  IM    
Copyright Information:
Copyright (c) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Comprehensive Stroke Center, University of Alabama Hospital, Birmingham, Ala., USA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Conflict of Interest
Peer Review, Research / standards*
Publishing / standards*
Reproducibility of Results

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Functional abilities in older adults with mild cognitive impairment.
Next Document:  Clinical significance of posterior circulation changes after revascularization in patients with moya...