There is a historical context as well as a scientific approach to conducting a proper journal peer review. With the increasing number of manuscripts submitted by investigators, and the multitude of solicitations for articles by journals, the traffic and speed of peer-reviewed publications can overwhelm the scientific process of verifying the presented information. This treatise highlights the roles and rights of a journal expert peer reviewer, and offers a checklist for anyone reading through a journal before and after it has been published.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
TriggleCR, TriggleDJ. What is the future of peer review?. Vasc Health Risk Manag, 2007; 3:39–53.
EinersonTR, KorenG. To accept or reject? A guide to peer reviewing of medical journals. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol, 2012; 19:e328–e333.
4.
BlackN, van RooyenS, GoodleeF, SmithR, EvansS. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?. JAMA, 1998; 280:231–233.
5.
SpierR. The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol, 2002; 20:357–358.
6.
KronickDA. Peer review in 18th century scientific journalism. JAMA, 1990; 263:1321–1322.
7.
SmithR. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of sciences and journals. J R Soc Med, 2006; 99:178–182.
8.
SawarU, NicolaouM. Fraud and deceit in medical research. J Res Med Sci, 2012; 17:1077–1081.
9.
LovejoyTI, RevensonTA, FranceCE. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Ann Behav Med, 2001; 42:1–13.
10.
KeenumA, ShubrookJ. How to peer review a scientific or scholarly article. Osteopath Fam Physician, 2012; 4:176–179.
11.
SchultzKF, AltmanDG, MoherD. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Inter Med, 2010; 152:726–732.
12.
von ElmE, AltmanDG, EggerM, PocockSJ, GotzschePC, VandenbrouckeJP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med, 2007; 147:5573–577.
13.
BossuytPM, ReitsmaJB, BrunsDE, GatsonisCA, GlasziouPP, IrwigLM, MoherD, RennieD, de VetHCW, LijmerJG. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med, 2003; 138:1–W2.
14.
WhitingPF, RutjesAWS, WestwoodME, MallettS, DeeksJJ, ReitsmaJB, et al.QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med, 2011; 155:529–536.
15.
MoherD, LiberatiA, TetzlaffJ, AltmanDG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Br Med J, 2009; 339:b2535.
16.
Council of Science Editors. Responsibilities and rights of peer reviewers. Science Editor, 2002; 25:187.
17.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Available at www.publicationethics.org.uk.guidelines. Accessed January5, 2014.
18.
AllenTW. Peer review guidance: How do you write a good review?. J am Osteopath Assoc. 2013; 113:916–920.
19.
CoghillAM, and GarsonLR, eds. The ACS Style Guide: Effective Communication of Scientific Information, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2006:71–76.
