Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers
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.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
- 4.Diener E. Being a good reviewer. Dialogue. 2006; 21: 23.Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 11.Lewin K. Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 1951.Google Scholar