How to be an outstanding reviewer for the Journal of General Internal Medicine … and other journals

  • Carlos Estrada
  • Adina Kalet
  • Wally Smith
  • Marshall H. Chin


Like all peer-reviewed journals, JGIM depends on your participation. If you have not volunteered already, register online at the Journal website to be considered for the JGIM reviewer database. Although the literature on this subject is limited, peer review is the best system we have currently for improving manuscript and journal quality. Peer review needs everyone’s participation to be valuable and viable. A well-done review is beneficial to the reviewer, Editor, and author. When preparing your review, we encourage you to keep the concepts outlined above in mind, as well as reviewing the annotated samples of good reviews available in the online version of this Editorial.


  1. 1.
    Laine C, Mulrow C. Peer review: integral to Science and indispensable to Annals. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:1038–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at annals of internal medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:11–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wager E, Middleton P. Effects of technical editing in biomedical journals: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2821–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roberts JC, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. JAMA. 1994;272:119–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:422–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:237–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1998;280:234–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER investigators. JAMA. 1998;280:240–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Callaham ML, Wears RL, Waeckerle JF. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;32:318–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;328:673 (Epub 2004 Mar 2).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Callaham ML, Knopp RK, Gallagher EJ. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials. JAMA. 2002;287:2781–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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;280:231–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Editors. Distinguished reviewers. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20 (1199).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:625–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    World Association of Medical Editors A Syllabus for Prospective and Newly Appointed Editors. Available at: Accessed September 25, 2005.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bordage G, Caelleigh AS, Steinecke A, et al. Review criteria for research manuscripts. Acad Med. 2001;76:897–978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Training package for BMJ peer reviewers. British Medical Journal. Available at: Accessed September 25, 2005.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Educational Resources. An Instructional Guide for Peer-Reviewers of Biomedical Manuscripts. Annals of Emergency Medicine. Available at: Accessed September 17, 2005.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reed D, Price EG, Windish DM, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of educational intervention studies. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1080–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896–900.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ. 1996;313:275–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Lohr KN, Teutsch S, Mandelblatt J. Challenges in systematic reviews of economic analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:1073–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rennie D. Improving reports of studies of diagnostic tests: the STARD initiative. JAMA. 2003;289:89–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285:1987–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:361–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND). Available at: Accessed November 11, 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Estrada
    • 1
  • Adina Kalet
    • 2
  • Wally Smith
    • 3
  • Marshall H. Chin
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirmingham
  2. 2.Division of General Internal MedicineNew York University School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Division of Quality Health Care Virginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  4. 4.University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations