Annals of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 1–13 | Cite as

Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers

  • Travis I. LovejoyEmail author
  • Tracey A. Revenson
  • Christopher R. France
Original Article



The importance of peer review in the furthering of science cannot be overstated. However, most doctoral students and early career professionals receive little formal or informal training in conducting peer reviews.


In recognition of this deficit in peer reviewer training, the present article was developed to provide an overview of the peer-review process at Annals of Behavioral Medicine and describe the general and specific elements that should be included in a high-quality review for the journal.


We conclude by offering exemplar reviews of a manuscript that was ultimately accepted for publication in the journal and provide commentary on specific aspects of these reviews.


Peer review 


Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Suls J, Martin R. The air we breathe: A critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer-review process. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009, 4:40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooper ML. Problems, pitfalls, and promise of the peer-review process: Commentary on Trafimow & Rice (2009). Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009; 4: 84–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE. How to review a paper. Adv Physiol Educ. 2003; 27: 47–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diener E. Being a good reviewer. Dialogue. 2006; 21: 23.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drotar D. Editorial: How to write effective reviews for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology. J Pediatr Psychol. 2009; 34: 113–117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frieze IH. Doing an excellent review of a Sex Roles paper. Sex Roles. 2010; 62: 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moher D, Jadad AR. How to peer review a manuscript. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer review in the health sciences. London: BMJ Books; 2003: 183–190.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tesser A, Martin L. Reviewing empirical submissions to journals. In: Sternberg RJ, ed. Reviewing scientific works in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2005: 3–29.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fiske DW, Fogg L. But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. Am Psychol. 1990; 45: 591–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Epstein S. What can be done to improve the journal review process? Am Psychol. 1995; 50: 883–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewin K. Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 1951.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bogart LM, Wagner GJ, Galvan FH, Klein DJ. Longitudinal relationships between antiretroviral treatment adherence and discrimination due to HIV-serostatus, race, and sexual orientation among African-American men with HIV. Ann Behav Med. 2010; 40: 184–190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Behavioral Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Travis I. Lovejoy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tracey A. Revenson
    • 2
  • Christopher R. France
    • 1
  1. 1.Ohio UniversityAthensUSA
  2. 2.The Graduate CenterCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations