Revisiting Peer Review: Is it Time for you to be a Peer Reviewer?

Alexandrov A.V. Hennerici M.G. Norrving B. Suggestions for reviewing manuscripts. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009; 28: 243–246.

Algase D.L. The function and value of peer review: see what you can do. Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2011; 25(4): 231–232.

Annesley T.M. Seven reasons not to be a peer reviewer-and why these reasons are wrong [published online ahead of print]. Clin Chem. 2012; 58(4). doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2012.182618.

Applegate W.X. Pearls on publishing. J Am Geriatrics Soc. 2000; 48: 1531–1532.

Benitz B.L. Why be a reviewer? Arch Med Res. 1999; 30(5): 343–344.

Black N. van Rooyen S. Godlee F. Smith R. Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA. 1998; 280(3): 231–233.

Cada D.J. Become a peer reviewer. Hosp Pharm. 2008; 43(11): 864–865.

Curfman G.D. Morrissey S. Annas G.J. Drazen J.M. Peer review in the balance. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(21): 2276–2277.

DeMaria A.N. Peer review: the weakest link. J Am College Cardiol. 2010; 55(11): 1161–1162.

Goldberg R.J. Dalen J.E. Enhancing peer review of scientific manuscripts. Arch Intern Med. 1997; 157: 380–382.

Grainger D.W. Peer review as professional responsibility: a quality control system only as good as the participants. Biomaterial. 2007; 28(34): 5199–5203.

Kyrgidis A. Triaridis S. Methods and biostatistics: a concise guide for peer reviewers. Hippokratia. 2010; 14(suppl 1): 13–22.

Liesegang T.J. Peer review should continue after publication. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010; 149(3): 359–360.

Lovejoy T.I. Revenson T.A. France C.R. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Ann Behav Med. 2011; 42(1): 1–13.

Miracle V.A. The peer review process. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2008; 27(2): 67–69.

Moher D. Simera I. Schulz K.F. Hoey J. Altman D.G. Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research. BMC Med. 2008; 6: 13.

Rosenfeld R.M. How to review journal manuscripts. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010; 142: 472–486.

Rennie D. Flanagin A. Godlee F. Groves T. Seventh international congress on peer review and biomedical publication, September 2013. BMJ. 2012; 344: e703

Salasche S.J. How to “peer review” a medical journal manuscript. Dermatol Surg. 1997; 23(6): 423–428.

Seals D.R. Tanaka H. Manuscript peer review: a helpful checklist for students and novice referees. Adv Physiol Educ. 2000; 23(1): 52–58.

Stehbens W.E. Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review. Med Hypotheses. 1999; 52(1): 31–36.

Sylvia L.M. Herbei J.L. Manuscript peer review - a guide for health care professionals. Pharmacotherapy. 2001; 21(4): 395–404.

World Association of Medical Editors. Reviewers—their responsibilities, selection, and rewards, http://www.wame.org/resources/editor-s-syllabus#reviewers. Accessed February 22, 2012.

Yoder-Wise P.S. More on peer review. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2008; 39(5): 195.

Alberts B. Hanson B. Keiner K.L. Reviewing peer review. Science. 2008; 321(5885): 15.

Baxt W.G. Waeckerle J.F. Berlin J.A. Callaham M.L. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Ann Emerg Med. 1998; 32(3: pt 1): 310–317.

Erren T.C. Judging words rather than journals or authors: a reminder that peer review continues after publication. QJM. 2007; 100(12): 799–800.

Goodman S.N. Berlin J. Fletcher S.W. Fletcher R.H. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1994; 121(1): 11–21.

Van Rooyen S. Black N. Godle F. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999; 52(7): 625–629.