AJR Custom publishing of AJR articles and ARRS Cat. Course
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Polak, J. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Polak, J. F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 165, 685-688, Copyright © 1995 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process

JF Polak
Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

Peer review of submitted manuscripts is recognized as a critical component of the publication process in all major medical journals. It lends respectability and scientific credibility to those journals that have adopted the process [1]. This function is delegated to a group of persons who perform the task selflessly and without compensation. Of the many facets of the peer review process, the selection of manuscript reviewers and their subsequent interaction with both editors and authors may be so poorly understood by aspiring authors that certain misconceptions ensue. Authors of rejected manuscripts may fear that reviewers have acted in an arbitrary and possibly censorial fashion [2, 3]. Conversely, authors of accepted manuscripts who face a mountain of revisions may wonder if such an effort is likely to improve their manuscript [4, 5]. The following questions come to mind: Where do the reviewers come from? What do they do, and what constitutes a good reviewer? What power do they have? How is reviewer performance measured? Can the editor recognize publicly the good reviewer? Are reviewers really blinded? How does one become a good reviewer? Who will be the reviewers of the future? While looking at these questions, we should consider objective approaches of assessing reviewer quality and wonder whether they would improve the quality of the published manuscript.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. A. Kliewer, K. S. Freed, D. M. DeLong, P. J. Pickhardt, and J. M. Provenzale
Reviewing the Reviewers: Comparison of Review Quality and Reviewer Characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2005; 184(6): 1731 - 1735.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. A. Kliewer, D. M. DeLong, K. Freed, C. B. Jenkins, E. K. Paulson, and J. M. Provenzale
Peer Review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: How Reviewer and Manuscript Characteristics Affected Editorial Decisions on 196 Major Papers
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2004; 183(6): 1545 - 1550.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.