Abstract
Background
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.
Purpose
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.
Conclusion
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Cooper ML. Problems, pitfalls, and promise of the peer-review process: Commentary on Trafimow & Rice (2009). Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009; 4: 84–90.
Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE. How to review a paper. Adv Physiol Educ. 2003; 27: 47–52.
Diener E. Being a good reviewer. Dialogue. 2006; 21: 23.
Drotar D. Editorial: How to write effective reviews for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology. J Pediatr Psychol. 2009; 34: 113–117.
Frieze IH. Doing an excellent review of a Sex Roles paper. Sex Roles. 2010; 62: 293.
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.
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.
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.
Epstein S. What can be done to improve the journal review process? Am Psychol. 1995; 50: 883–885.
Lewin K. Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 1951.
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.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Author Note: Collectively, the authors have many years of experience writing reviews, receiving reviews, and making editorial decisions. Travis I. Lovejoy is a graduate student at Ohio University and is currently a pre-doctoral clinical psychology intern at the Portland VA Medical Center. He conducted over 15 peer reviews of manuscripts submitted to behavioral medicine journals as a graduate student. Tracey A. Revenson was the Founding Editor-in-Chief of Women’s Health: Research on Gender, Behavior, and Policy and is currently an Associate Editor of Annals of Behavioral Medicine and on the editorial board of Health Psychology. She also teaches a graduate course on “The Publication Process.” Christopher R. France is the Editor-in-Chief of Annals of Behavioral Medicine and the past Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Behavioral Medicine, and has served as Associate Editor for Pain, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Psychophysiology, and International Journal of Psychophysiology.
Appendices
Appendix A
Action letter for initial submission
Appendix B
Action letter for revised submission
About this article
Cite this article
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. 42, 1–13 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9269-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9269-x