Surviving peer review.
editor
manuscript revision
manuscript writing
publication
reviewer
Journal
Journal of clinical apheresis
ISSN: 1098-1101
Titre abrégé: J Clin Apher
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8216305
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
11
07
2020
revised:
13
07
2020
accepted:
14
07
2020
pubmed:
10
8
2020
medline:
4
11
2021
entrez:
10
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The process of publishing original work in a peer review journal is not complete at the point where the manuscript is first submitted. The journal editors will submit the manuscript to peer review whereby outside experts are asked to vet the manuscript for scientific merit, originality and quality. Reviewers' comments are meant to help authors strengthen their manuscripts for potential publication. Authors benefit from this feedback and should approach the reviewers as volunteer consultants rather than as critics. Authors should respond to all reviewers' comments, completely and politely addressing the points raised. This article is meant to assist junior or inexperienced authors to understand the process of peer review and to function effectively within the process in order to succeed in having their manuscripts published.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
469-476Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Voight ML, Hoogenboom BJ. Publishing your work in a journal: understanding the peer review process. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7:452-460.
Happell B. Responding to reviewers' comments as part of writing for publication. Nurs Res. 2011;18:23-27.
Spier R. The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol. 2002;20:357-358.
Burnham JC. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA. 1990;263:1323-1329.
What might peer review look like in 2030? SpotOn Report. https://events.biomedcentral.com/spoton-2016-report/. Accessed July 4, 2020.
Preston A. The Future of Peer Review. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-future-of-peer-review/. Accessed July 4, 2020.
Pierie J-PEN, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJPM. Readers' evaluation of effects of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet. 1996;348:1480-1483.
Author Guidelines, Journal of Clinical Apheresis. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/10981101/homepage/forauthors.html. Accessed July 5, 2020.
Weinstein R. How to write a manuscript for peer review. J Clin Apher. 2020;1-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jca.21797.
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.
Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D, the PEER Investigators. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:240-242.
Provenzale JM. Revising a manuscript: ten principles to guide success for publication. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:W382-W387.
Conn VS. Manuscript revision strategies. West J Nurs Res. 2007;29:786-788.
Williams HC. How to reply to referees' comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;51:79-83.
Morgan PP. The joys of revising a manuscript. CMAJ. 1986;134:1328.
Berson SA, Yalow RS, Bauman A, Rothschild MA, Newerly K. Insulin-I131 metabolism in human subjects: demonstration of insulin binding globulin in the circulation of insulin treated subjects. J Clin Invest. 1956;35:170-190.
Kahn CR, Roth J. Berson, Yalow and the JCI: the agony and the ecstasy. J Clin Invest. 2004;114:1051-1054.
Tan SY, Bracha A. Rosalyn Yalow (1921-2011): Madam Curie from the Bronx. Singapore Med J. 2019;60:337-338.