References
Bordage G: Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001; 76: 889–896
Hoppin FG: How I review an original scientific article. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166: 1019–1023
Bordage G, Caelleigh AS: How to read “review criteria for research manuscripts.” Acad Med 2001; 76: 908–909
Owen R: Reader bias. JAMA 1982; 247: 2533–2534
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: 234–237
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: 237–240
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: 240–242
Roberts LW: On the centrality of peer review. Acad Psychiatry 2002; 26: 221–222
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roberts, L.W., Coverdale, J., Edenharder, K. et al. How to Review a Manuscript: A “Down-to-Earth” Approach. Acad Psychiatry 28, 81–87 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.28.2.81
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.28.2.81