How to Review a Manuscript

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Manuscript peer review is fundamental to the evaluation and dissemination of modern science; it is the process whereby good science is enhanced and bad science is dismissed. Very little objective evidence, however, has been amassed to guide the manuscript peer review process. Rather, it is learned by experience and mentoring: by doing reviews, receiving reviews of one's own work, and by obtaining feedback from seasoned reviewers. Here, I lay out my perspective on this cornerstone of the scientific endeavor.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)109-111
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Electrocardiology
Volume49
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2016

Fingerprint

Manuscripts
Peer Review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

How to Review a Manuscript. / Hill, Joseph A.

In: Journal of Electrocardiology, Vol. 49, No. 2, 01.03.2016, p. 109-111.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hill, Joseph A. / How to Review a Manuscript. In: Journal of Electrocardiology. 2016 ; Vol. 49, No. 2. pp. 109-111.
@article{1d391413b99d4878a3a993a6be319123,
title = "How to Review a Manuscript",
abstract = "Manuscript peer review is fundamental to the evaluation and dissemination of modern science; it is the process whereby good science is enhanced and bad science is dismissed. Very little objective evidence, however, has been amassed to guide the manuscript peer review process. Rather, it is learned by experience and mentoring: by doing reviews, receiving reviews of one's own work, and by obtaining feedback from seasoned reviewers. Here, I lay out my perspective on this cornerstone of the scientific endeavor.",
author = "Hill, {Joseph A}",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2016.01.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "49",
pages = "109--111",
journal = "Journal of Electrocardiology",
issn = "0022-0736",
publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How to Review a Manuscript

AU - Hill, Joseph A

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Manuscript peer review is fundamental to the evaluation and dissemination of modern science; it is the process whereby good science is enhanced and bad science is dismissed. Very little objective evidence, however, has been amassed to guide the manuscript peer review process. Rather, it is learned by experience and mentoring: by doing reviews, receiving reviews of one's own work, and by obtaining feedback from seasoned reviewers. Here, I lay out my perspective on this cornerstone of the scientific endeavor.

AB - Manuscript peer review is fundamental to the evaluation and dissemination of modern science; it is the process whereby good science is enhanced and bad science is dismissed. Very little objective evidence, however, has been amassed to guide the manuscript peer review process. Rather, it is learned by experience and mentoring: by doing reviews, receiving reviews of one's own work, and by obtaining feedback from seasoned reviewers. Here, I lay out my perspective on this cornerstone of the scientific endeavor.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959558600&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959558600&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2016.01.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2016.01.001

M3 - Article

C2 - 26850498

AN - SCOPUS:84959558600

VL - 49

SP - 109

EP - 111

JO - Journal of Electrocardiology

JF - Journal of Electrocardiology

SN - 0022-0736

IS - 2

ER -