Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

A guide to reviewing manuscripts.

Greg R Alexander1

  • 1Department of Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 320 A Ryals Building, 1665 University Boulevard, Birmingham, Alabama 35294-0022, USA. alexandg@uab.edu

Maternal and Child Health Journal
|May 11, 2005
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Pregnancy outcomes among Whites and Filipinos: A paradoxical birth weight-neonatal mortality relationship.

American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council·2017
Same author

Extrauterine neuromaturation of low risk preterm infants.

Pediatric research·2009
Same author

Interpregnancy interval and subsequent perinatal outcomes among women delaying initiation of childbearing.

The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research·2008
Same author

Pregnancy spacing among women delaying initiation of childbearing.

Archives of gynecology and obstetrics·2008
Same author

Obesity and extreme obesity: new insights into the black-white disparity in neonatal mortality.

Obstetrics and gynecology·2008
Same author

Racial disparities in perinatal outcomes and pregnancy spacing among women delaying initiation of childbearing.

Maternal and child health journal·2008
Same journal

Multiple Output Gaussian Process Model for Predicting Low Birth Weight in Medellín, Colombia: An Alternative to Conventional Machine Learning Models.

Maternal and child health journal·2026
Same journal

Baby-Feed Pilot Trial for Improving Diet and Weight Gain in Infants and Toddlers.

Maternal and child health journal·2026
Same journal

Association of Food Insecurity with Mental Health and Clinical Outcomes Among Women Living with HIV/AIDS: A Cross-Sectional Study of Southwestern Iran.

Maternal and child health journal·2026
Same journal

Awareness and Attitudes of Health Professionals on Endocrine Disruptors in Pregnancy.

Maternal and child health journal·2026
Same journal

Differences in Maternal Outcomes Among American Indian/Alaska Native and White Women with Hypertensive Disorder of Pregnancy in a Rural State.

Maternal and child health journal·2026
Same journal

Perceived Clinician Autonomy Support Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic Onset in a Pregnancy Cohort.

Maternal and child health journal·2026
See all related articles

MCH professionals are crucial peer-reviewers for scientific journals. This article offers guidance on manuscript review and structuring responses for publication, enhancing scientific rigor.

Area of Science:

  • Public Health
  • Medical Education
  • Scholarly Publishing

Background:

  • MCH professionals contribute significantly as peer-reviewers.
  • Peer review is essential for maintaining scientific integrity and relevance in MCH literature.
  • Effective manuscript review is vital for advancing the field.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To provide comprehensive guidance for MCH professionals undertaking manuscript reviews.
  • To propose a structured approach for manuscript evaluation and response formulation.
  • To enhance the quality and efficiency of the peer-review process in MCH.

Main Methods:

  • Literature review of best practices in scholarly peer review.
  • Development of a structured framework for manuscript assessment.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Guidance on organizing feedback for editors and authors.

    • Main Results:

    • A clear framework for manuscript review is presented.
    • Strategies for constructive and organized feedback are outlined.
    • The importance of MCH professionals' role in peer review is emphasized.

    Conclusions:

    • Adopting the proposed structure can improve the peer-review process.
    • Enhanced review practices contribute to higher quality MCH publications.
    • This guidance supports MCH professionals in their critical role as peer-reviewers.