Advanced

Suggestions for Reviewing Manuscripts

Alexandrov, Andrei V.; Hennerici, Michael G. and Norrving, Bo LU (2009) In Cerebrovascular Diseases 28(3). p.243-246
Abstract
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... (More)
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. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Peer review, Ethics, Validity
in
Cerebrovascular Diseases
volume
28
issue
3
pages
243 - 246
publisher
Karger
external identifiers
  • wos:000268676400034
  • scopus:67650102949
ISSN
1421-9786
DOI
10.1159/000228588
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
3cca4de9-2baf-4ca9-b894-10947a2b2d41 (old id 1460077)
date added to LUP
2009-08-31 10:39:15
date last changed
2017-11-19 03:34:20
@article{3cca4de9-2baf-4ca9-b894-10947a2b2d41,
  abstract     = {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. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel},
  author       = {Alexandrov, Andrei V. and Hennerici, Michael G. and Norrving, Bo},
  issn         = {1421-9786},
  keyword      = {Peer review,Ethics,Validity},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {3},
  pages        = {243--246},
  publisher    = {Karger},
  series       = {Cerebrovascular Diseases},
  title        = {Suggestions for Reviewing Manuscripts},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000228588},
  volume       = {28},
  year         = {2009},
}