Advertisement

Reviewing Manuscripts: A Systematic Approach

  • Gina S. Sucato
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence to: Gina S. Sucato, MD, MPH, Adolescent Center, Washington Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, 13451 SE 36th St, Bellevue, WA 98006; Phone: (425) 562-1356
    Affiliations
    Washington Permanente Medical Group, and Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Bellevue, Washington
    Search for articles by this author
  • Cynthia Holland-Hall
    Affiliations
    Department of Clinical Pediatrics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, and Section of Adolescent Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio
    Search for articles by this author

      Abstract

      Peer-review of manuscripts submitted for publication in a scholarly journal is a cornerstone of the scientific process. Most scholars receive little or no training on how to conduct this key component of academic citizenship. This article provides guidance on a systematic approach to performing peer-review.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Brainard J.
        Researchers debate whether journals should publish signed peer reviews.
        (Available:) (Accessed July 15, 2018)
        • McNutt R.A.
        • Evans A.T.
        • Fletcher R.H.
        • et al.
        The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
        JAMA. 1990; 263: 1371
        • Rennie D.
        Let’s make peer review scientific.
        Nature. 2016; 535: 31
        • Tomaszewski C.
        Blinding in peer review.
        J Med Toxicol. 2008; 4: 147
        • Fontanarosa P.
        • Bauchner H.
        Conflict of interest and medical journals.
        JAMA. 2017; 317: 1768
        • Cummings P.
        • Rivara F.P.
        Reviewing manuscripts for Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.
        Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002; 156: 11
        • Hoppin Jr., F.G.
        How I review an original scientific article.
        Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002; 166: 1019
        • Roberts L.W.
        • Coverdale J.
        • Edenharder K.
        • et al.
        How to review a manuscript: a “down-to-earth” approach.
        Acad Psychiatry. 2004; 28: 81
        • Garmel G.M.
        Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals.
        Perm J. 2010; 14: 32
        • 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
        • Mulligan A.
        • Hall L.
        • Raphael E.
        Peer review in a changing world: an international study measuring the attitudes of researchers.
        J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2013; 64: 132