What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts?

Goldbeck‐Wood, Sandra

doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7125.86

Cited by 59 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One study showed up to 42% of reviewers not told the identity of the authors were still able to identify them. (Goldbeck-Wood, 1998 (Godlee, 2002). She agreed with other authors (Fabiato, 1994) that open reviews would decrease opportunities for making judgements that were unjustified or biased because reviewers could not hide under the "cloak of anonymity".…”

Section: Types Of Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer reviewing made easy

Halder¹,

Ramsay²,

Tyrer³

et al. 2011

Adv. psychiatr. treat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryPeer review in scientific journals has existed for over 200 years. This process is currently the accepted way of assessing scientific manuscripts prior to publication for most journals. Despite this, little has been written about the process of peer reviewing, with hardly anything specific to psychiatric journals. This article answers fundamental questions related to peer reviewing and includes practical tips to writing reviews. It will be helpful for those keen on improving their knowledge about the peer-review process. It will not only benefit those who are reviewers or thinking about becoming reviewers, but also authors, who can use the information to improve their chances of publication.

show abstract

Section: Types Of Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer reviewing made easy

Halder¹,

Ramsay²,

Tyrer³

et al. 2011

Adv. psychiatr. treat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most common reason given for blinded reviews relates to differential power: young, junior researchers (who are known to provide the best reviews) 6 can be intimidated at the thought of the consequences of being critical of a senior colleague on whom they may be dependent for promotion or a job. This is a hard concern to deny, but one which, if factored into editorial reasoning, effectively serves to tacitly endorse behaviour by senior public health researchers that would be reprehensible.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Blinding of reviewers and authors

Chapman

2003

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…neatly summed up a dilemma for practice-based academic disciplines (Griffiths, 1998 (Normand, 1998 (Smith, 1997;Goldbeck-Wood, 1998;Grifliths, 1998 (Smith, 1997 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

It's time to get off the esoteric merry-go-round

Garbett¹

1998

NT Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts?

Cited by 59 publications

References 2 publications

Peer reviewing made easy

Peer reviewing made easy

Blinding of reviewers and authors

It's time to get off the esoteric merry-go-round

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About