SwePub
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Extended search

WFRF:(Norrving Bo)
 

Search: WFRF:(Norrving Bo) > (2005-2009) > Suggestions for Rev...

Suggestions for Reviewing Manuscripts

Alexandrov, Andrei V. (author)
Hennerici, Michael G. (author)
Norrving, Bo (author)
Lund University,Lunds universitet,Neurologi, Lund,Sektion IV,Institutionen för kliniska vetenskaper, Lund,Medicinska fakulteten,Neurology, Lund,Section IV,Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund,Faculty of Medicine
 (creator_code:org_t)
2009-07-14
2009
English.
In: Cerebrovascular Diseases. - : S. Karger AG. - 1421-9786 .- 1015-9770. ; 28:3, s. 243-246
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)
Abstract Subject headings
Close  
  • Background: Scientific reviewing is a voluntary process to determine if a manuscript deserves publication. REVIEW means: Responsibly Evaluate, Verify and Improve the manuscript, Educate the authors and editors, and Weigh your expert opinion against the submitted work. Provide your review in a respectful, unbiased and timely manner. Review Methods: Make sure editors know about your willingness to review and your particular area(s) of expertise. If you find yourself in a conflict of interest, decline to participate in reviewing. If you accept, complete reviews on time. Determine and rate (1) the methodological validity, (2) originality, (3) significance of findings, (4) the style and clarity of presentation and (5) the findings' interest to the readership of the journal for which you are asked to review a manuscript. Specifically evaluate (6) if the results support any claims or conclusions made and, most importantly, (7) if the abstract correctly reflects the full content of a manuscript. Summarize your review in specific comments to the authors. Make recommendations whether to accept, revise or reject the manuscript to the editor only. Review Results: Start with a brief summary of the manuscript's subject, strengths and key findings/claims. Present your specific criticisms and suggestions in numbered lists for the authors to address. Never use demeaning and offensive words or sarcasm since, in the first place, this reflects upon your own ethics and integrity as well as upon the journal's. Use a constructive tone, and if you see any deficiencies, educate the authors in a respectful manner so that, even if a manuscript is rejected, they will learn from you, improve the manuscript or conduct a better study in the future. Also include ratings from 1 to 7 in your comments to the authors, as far as they are relevant and may explain your final decision. Conclusions: Judge others as you would like to be judged yourself. We hope these suggestions serve to help new reviewers and refresh the willingness of battle-hardened veterans to continuously serve the medical literature. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel

Subject headings

MEDICIN OCH HÄLSOVETENSKAP  -- Klinisk medicin -- Kardiologi (hsv//swe)
MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES  -- Clinical Medicine -- Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems (hsv//eng)

Keyword

Peer review
Ethics
Validity

Publication and Content Type

art (subject category)
ref (subject category)

Find in a library

To the university's database

Find more in SwePub

By the author/editor
Alexandrov, Andr ...
Hennerici, Micha ...
Norrving, Bo
About the subject
MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES
MEDICAL AND HEAL ...
and Clinical Medicin ...
and Cardiac and Card ...
Articles in the publication
Cerebrovascular ...
By the university
Lund University

Search outside SwePub

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Close

Copy and save the link in order to return to this view