Abstract
Peer reviewing is a key mechanism underlying science publishing, but during their graduate training clinicians and researchers are unlikely to be taught the skill. This paper sets forth the art of peer reviewing in general, and the types of reviews that are most useful to the Editors of Spinal Cord (SC). The topics addressed are: the SC editorial process; the role of the referee; review process steps; the content and language of a review; and resources available to peer reviewers.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990;263:1321–2.
Del Mar C, Hoffmann TC. A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials. BMC Med. 2015;13:248.
Kotsis SV, Chung KC. Manuscript rejection: How to submit a revision and tips on being a good peer reviewer. Plast Reconstr Surgery. 2014;133:958–64.
Moher D. Optimal strategies to consider when peer reviewing a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2015;13:274.
Lippi G, How, do I. peer-review a scientific article? A personal perspective. Annals of translational medicine. 2018;6:68.
Scrimgeour GJ, Pruss SD. Writing highly effective reviews of a scientific manuscript. Freshw Sci. 2016;35:1076–81.
Azer SA, Ramani S, Peterson R. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals. Medical teacher. 2012;34:698–704.
Lazarides MK, Georgiadis GS, Papanas N. Do’s and don’ts for a good reviewer of scientific papers: a beginner’s brief decalogue. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2020;19:227–9.
Hill JA. How to review a manuscript. J Electrocardiol. 2016;49:109–11.
Smolcic VS, Simundic AM. Peer-review policy and guidelines for Biochemia Medica journal. Biochem Med. 2014;24:321–8.
Garfield JM, Kaye AD, Kolinsky DC, Urman RD. A systematic guide for peer reviewers for a medical journal. J Med Pract Manage 2015;30:13–7.
Resnik DB, Elmore SA. Conflict of interest in journal peer review. Toxico Pathol. 2018;46:112–4.
Program NIoHE. Managing conflict of interest Bethesda, Maryland, USA: National Institutes of Healt; 2019. https://ethics.od.nih.gov/topics/conflicts.htm.
ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/.
International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). https://www.who.int/ictrp/search/en/.
PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.
Harvey LA. Spin kills science. Spinal Cord. 2015;53:417.
EQUATOR Network. https://www.equator-network.org/.
PUBLONS. https://publons.com/about/home/.
Chauvin A, Ravaud P, Baron G, Barnes C, Boutron I. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors. BMC Med. 2015;13:158.
Einarson TR, Koren G. To accept or reject? A guide to peer reviewing of medical journal papers. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2012;19:e328–33.
Provenzale JM, Stanley RJ. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. J Nucl Med Technol. 2006;34:92–9.
Parker TH, Griffith SC, Bronstein JL, Fidler F, Foster S, Fraser H, et al. Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency. Nature Ecol Evol. 2018;2:929–35.
Greenwood DC, Freeman JV. How to spot a statistical problem: advice for a non-statistical reviewer. BMC Med. 2015;13:270.
Makin TR, Orban de Xivry JJ. Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript. eLife. 2019;8:e48175. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48175.
BMJ’s Reviewer training materials. https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers/training-materials.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) eLearning programme. https://publicationethics.org/resources/e-learning.
Elsevier’s Researcher Academy Fundamentals of Peer Review course. https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review.
Elsevier’s Reviewer Hub. https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers.
Mendeley’s Public Library of Peer Review Studies. https://www.mendeley.com/community/peer-review-resources/.
Springer’s tutorial: How to peer review. https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/howtopeerreview.
SpringerNature Focus on Peer Review training course. https://masterclasses.nature.com/focus-on-peer-review-online-course/16605550.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Lisa Harvey BAppSc: GradDipAppSc(ExSpSc): MAppSc; PhD, former Spinal Cord Editor-in-Chief, for assistance in determining what was important to cover, other hints, and straightening the language.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares no competing interests.
Statement of ethics
No animal or human participants were studied, so ethics review was not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dijkers, M.P. A guide to peer reviewing for Spinal Cord. Spinal Cord 59, 571–581 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-021-00627-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-021-00627-3
