Academic Psychiatry

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 81–87 | Cite as

How to Review a Manuscript: A “Down-to-Earth” Approach

  • Laura Weiss Roberts
  • John Coverdale
  • Kristin Edenharder
  • Alan Louie
Editorial

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bordage G: Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001; 76: 889–896PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoppin FG: How I review an original scientific article. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166: 1019–1023PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bordage G, Caelleigh AS: How to read “review criteria for research manuscripts.” Acad Med 2001; 76: 908–909Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Owen R: Reader bias. JAMA 1982; 247: 2533–2534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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: 234–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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: 237–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D and the PEER investigators: Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998; 280: 240–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roberts LW: On the centrality of peer review. Acad Psychiatry 2002; 26: 221–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academic Psychiatry 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Weiss Roberts
  • John Coverdale
  • Kristin Edenharder
  • Alan Louie

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations