Reviewing a reviewer☆

Reviewing a reviewer.

We are all authors, but at the same time we are all reviewers. We write articles, anticipate that they will be reviewed quickly and favorably and hope that they will be accepted. We write reviews and anticipate that our recommendations will be honored and our concerns will be addressed. The work of authors is visible and rewarding (if published), the work of reviewers is anonymous and not that ...

A Personal View Reviewing scientific manuscripts: how much statistical knowledge should a reviewer really know?

Morton JP. Reviewing scientific manuscripts: how much statistical knowledge should a reviewer really know? Adv Physiol Educ 33: 7–9, 2009; doi:10.1152/ advan.90207.2008.—In the sequel to their guidelines for reporting statistics in American Physiological Society journals, Curran-Everett and Benos highlighted that the initial guidelines of 2004 have had little effect on the statistical reporting...

Reviewing scientific manuscripts: how much statistical knowledge should a reviewer really know?

In the sequel to their guidelines for reporting statistics in American Physiological Society journals, Curran-Everett and Benos highlighted that the initial guidelines of 2004 have had little effect on the statistical reporting practices of authors. In the present article, I suggest that the guidelines have also had little impact on both journal reviewers and editors. I present three cases of s...

Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of our study was to determine which manuscript reviewer characteristics are most strongly associated with reviewer performance as judged by editors of the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR). MATERIALS AND METHODS At the AJR, manuscript reviews are rated by the journal editors on a subjective scale from 1 (lowest) to 4, on the basis of the value, thoroughness, and pu...

Response to Reviewer : Reviewer :