Review Article| Volume 31, ISSUE 5, P441-445, October 2018

Download started.


Reviewing Manuscripts: A Systematic Approach

  • Gina S. Sucato
    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
    Washington Permanente Medical Group, and Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Bellevue, Washington
    Search for articles by this author
  • Cynthia Holland-Hall
    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


      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 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


        • 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