Suggestions for reviewing manuscripts.

نویسندگان

  • Andrei V Alexandrov
  • Michael G Hennerici
  • Bo Norrving
چکیده

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.

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Reviewing a Manuscript for Publication

This paper offers suggestions about how to review a manuscript submitted for publication in the fields of management information systems, organizational studies, operations management, and management in general. Rationales for the suggestions and illustrative sample comments are provided. Reviewing a Manuscript for Publication http://www.people.vcu.edu/~aslee/referee.htm 2 of 14 1/17/2008 1:49 PM

متن کامل

Suggestions for Reviewing Texts

 مقدمه: یکی از مهمترین مراحل در فرآیند تحقیق، هدایت بررسی متون بصورتی مناسب می باشد. این فرآیند از نظر بیشتر دانشجویان و محققین وظیفه ای سنگین و خطیر است(۱). امروزه با توجه به رشد و توسعه فن آوری اطلاعات، محققین با انفجار اطلاعات مواجه هستند، به نحوی که تقریبا در یک روز ۶۰۰۰ متن علمی جدید منتشر می شود و آگاهیهای علمی تقریبا پس از گذشت هر ۵ سال دو برابر می گردد.

متن کامل

Author Responsibilities in Improving the Quality of Peer Reviews: A Rejoinder to Iivari (2016)

In this rejoinder to Iivari (2016), I discuss authors’ responsibilities in the process of ensuring quality reviews. I argue that one overlooked element in quality peer reviewing is authors’ unconstrained right to submit manuscripts in whatever form or quality they desire. As such, I suggest adding some constraints and offering more freedom to reviewers to maintain viability of the scholarly pub...

متن کامل

Author’s response to reviews Title: Comparison of diagnostic methods for early interproximal caries detection with nearinfrared light transillumination: An in vivo study Authors: ismail

Reviewer#1 (Reviewer 1): The introduction is pertinent to the topic addressed. The methodology can be described more clearly to respond to what the study proposes. We’d like to thank and express our deep gratitude to the reviewer for his/her kind concern and effort for reviewing our manuscript. We agree with the reviewer completely. Several changes were made according to reviewers’ suggestions....

متن کامل

Author’s response to reviews Title: Navigating the Sustainability Landscape: A Systematic Review of Sustainability Appoaches in Healthcare Authors:

We would like to thank you for your time in reviewing this paper. Your thoughtful questions, comments and suggestions for the manuscript have been greatly appreciated. We have now responded to the comments and addressed suggestions in the updated manuscript. Our response has been organised to first address the editorial comments followed by each reviewer in turn. All changes within the manuscri...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • Cerebrovascular diseases

دوره 28 3  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2009