Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers
- PDF / 1,300,984 Bytes
- 13 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 59 Downloads / 146 Views
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers Travis I. Lovejoy, M.S., M.P.H. & Tracey A. Revenson, Ph.D. & Christopher R. France, Ph.D.
Published online: 20 April 2011 # The Society of Behavioral Medicine 2011
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.
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 Editorin-Chief of Journal of Behavioral Medicine, and has served as Associate Editor for Pain, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Psychophysiology, and International Journal of Psychophysiology. T. I. Lovejoy (*) : C. R. France Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA e-mail: [email protected] T. A. Revenson The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA
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. Keywords Peer review
Introduction Scientific peer review dates back to the 1700s and has been a cornerstone to the publication of behavioral science research for three quarters of a century [1]. With the increasing number of scientific journals and technological advancements in recent decades—such as electronic manuscript submission and notification, digital proofing, and online publication—the volume and speed of scientific publishing has increased exponentially, resulting in an increased need for expert peer reviewers [1]. Reviewing journal manuscripts is both time-consuming and intellectually stimulating. Reading new work can be exciting and keeps one at the forefront of cutting-edge behavioral science, and the act of reviewing manuscripts can help reviewers improve the quality of their own manuscripts. However, reviewing manuscripts is (almost universally) unpaid, volunteer work, and part
Data Loading...
