Professional Documents
Culture Documents
How To Review A Paper
How To Review A Paper
How To Review A Paper
Hall
Advan Physiol Educ 27:47-52, 2003. doi:10.1152/advan.00057.2002
This article cites 7 articles, 3 of which you can access free at:
http://ajpadvan.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/27/2/47#BIBL
Updated information and services including high-resolution figures, can be found at:
http://ajpadvan.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/27/2/47
Additional material and information about Advances in Physiology Education can be found at:
http://www.the-aps.org/publications/advan
Advances in Physiology Education is dedicated to the improvement of teaching and learning physiology, both in specialized
courses and in the broader context of general biology education. It is published four times a year in March, June, September and
December by the American Physiological Society, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD 20814-3991. Copyright © 2005 by the
American Physiological Society. ISSN: 1043-4046, ESSN: 1522-1229. Visit our website at http://www.the-aps.org/.
A P E R S O N A L V I E W
1
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Alabama at Birmingham,
Birmingham, Alabama 35294; and 2Department of Physiology and Biophysics,
University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi 39216
Like any skill, the art of reviewing manuscripts is one dards and veracity in their specific areas of research.
that improves with practice. Although a person is not Usually, no monetary compensation is, or should be,
born with the knowledge or ability of how to be a provided.
good reviewer, the characteristics (e.g., fairness, thor-
oughness, integrity) of that person certainly contrib- This article will serve as an introduction to peer re-
ute to the activity. Unfortunately, it is rare to find a view. Our intent is to identify issues and ethics of the
scientist whose formal training has incorporated in- review process, not to provide a comprehensive set
struction in the art of reviewing. Nonetheless, the of guidelines for all aspects of the review process.
techniques of peer reviewing a manuscript can be We will focus on the peer review of research manu-
nurtured and developed. Yet, peer review is a recog- scripts submitted to scientific journals, but many of
nized and critical component of the overall publica- the elements of peer review can be applied to other
tion process that confers “added value” to a submitted areas, such as grants and books. Several questions will
paper. Moreover, editors are dependent on the iden- be addressed. What constitutes a good review and
tification of a cadre of “good” reviewers that they can reviewer? How should the review of a manuscript be
rely on for quality control and process efficiency. approached? What elements of a review are most
Reviewers, for the most part, act in this capacity from useful to the authors and editors? Should a manuscript
a sense of duty, selflessness, and a desire to contribute be reviewed differently depending on the nature of
in an important way to the maintenance of high stan- the journal? It is our contention, based on experience,
1043 - 4046 / 03 – $5.00 – COPYRIGHT © 2003 THE AMERICAN PHYSIOLOGICAL SOCIETY
that if a reviewer acts as an “author advocate,” then Are there any fatal methodological flaws? Are all the
many potential problems that may arise during the figures clear and necessary? Point 3 deals primarily with
peer review process will be avoided. For example, a ethical issues. Are there any concerns with regard to the
reviewer should treat a manuscript being reviewed as proper use and care of animals? If human studies were
he/she would want his/her own paper treated, i.e., done, were they conducted with the prior approval of
provide a critique that is positive, critical yet objec- the subjects and institutions? Did the human protocols
tive, and balanced, contains no personally offensive conform to prevailing ethical and legal standards? Point
comments, and is returned promptly. When specific 7 likewise falls under an ethical realm, only not for the
criticisms are made, the reviewer should indicate pre- authors but for the reviewer. The manuscript must be
cisely what the problems are and how they may be treated in a confidential manner. Thus a reviewer must
overcome. A confusing or uninformative critique is not only provide an unbiased evaluative analysis of the
not helpful either to the authors or to the editor. If the structural components of a manuscript but must do so
reviewer disputes a point made by the authors, he/ in an acceptable, ethical context.
she should provide explicit justification for his/her
TABLE 1
Criteria for manuscript review
1. The reviewer should provide an honest, critical want a junior colleague to have the experience of
assessment of the research. The reviewer’s job is reviewing and therefore may ask him/her to collab-
to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the orate on a review. However, if this is done, your
research, provide suggestions for improvement, collaborator on the review should also agree to
and clearly state what must be done to raise the maintain confidentiality, and the editor should be
level of enthusiasm for the work. The reviewer informed of the participation of this additional per-
should not manipulate the process to force the son. Some journals require editor approval before a
authors to address issues interesting or important colleague or student is asked to view a submitted
to the reviewer but peripheral to the objective(s) paper; others do not.
of the study.
3. The reviewer must not participate in plagiarism.
2. The reviewer should maintain confidentiality about It is obviously a very serious transgression to take
the existence and substance of the manuscript. It is data or novel concepts from a paper to advance
not appropriate to share the manuscript or to dis- your own work before the manuscript is pub-
cuss it in detail with others or even to reveal the lished.
existence of the submission before publication.
There are some exceptions, if approved by the 4. The reviewer should always avoid, or disclose,
editor. One exception is that the reviewer may any conflicts of interest. For example, the re-
viewer should decline to review a manuscript on tive review. Editors are not trying to determine
a subject in which he/she is involved in a conten- the scientific prowess or wittiness of the re-
tious dispute and does not feel that a fair review viewer. The reviewer should not shy away from
can be provided. The reviewer should also avoid discussing the weaknesses (or strengths) of a
biases that influence the scientific basis for a study, however. No one likes to have a paper
review. One example of this is a bias that favors rejected, but a carefully worded review with ap-
studies with positive rather than negative results. propriate suggestions for revision can be very
Another example is if the reviewer has a close helpful. In fact, an author should prefer to have
personal or professional relationship with one or his/her paper rejected if the review process un-
more of the authors such that his/her objectivity covered errors in the study.
would be compromised. Scientific merit should
be the basis for all reviews.
SUMMARY
5. The reviewer should accept manuscripts for re- Reviewing is both a privilege and responsibility. It
5. Joint Task Force of Academic Medicine and the GEA- 8. Van Rooyen S, Black N, and Godlee F. Development of the
RIME Committee. Task force report—review criteria for re- review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of
search manuscripts. Acad Med 76(9), 2001. manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol 52: 625– 629, 1999.
6. Polak JF. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review 9. Weller AC. Editorial. Peer review in US medical journals. JAMA
process. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther 165: 685–688, 1995. 263: 1344 –1347, 1990.
7. Siegelman SS. Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. 10. Weller AC. Peer review: do studies prove its effectiveness? The
Radiology 178: 637– 642, 1991. Scientist October 29, 2001, p.39.