Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 14, 2026

Transthoracic Echocardiography in Mice
Published on: May 28, 2010
Peer reviewer survey for Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings
Christopher Peterson1, Cynthia Orticio2, Kenneth Nugent3
1Department of Internal Medicine, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, Virginia.
Abstract:
Editors of medical journals have important responsibilities and depend on peer reviewers to evaluate the quality of submitted manuscripts. However, invitations to undertake peer review are often declined, and in some cases the reviewer fails to provide a review in a reasonable timeframe. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings surveyed recent reviewers to determine their motivations for undertaking a review and possible benefits associated with reviewing. Sixty-seven reviewers (12.4%) out of 540 responded to the survey request. Reviewer characteristics included long-standing involvement in research (50 reviewers in research ≥11 years) and prior publication (50 reviewers ≥6 articles). Many reviewers thought that reviewing articles represented a responsibility and provided an opportunity for them to contribute to scientific efforts and medical publications and to learn new information. Survey respondents suggested that recognition by the journal was an adequate benefit. This survey, like others, indicates that editors will continue to depend on a core set of reviewers who consider this activity both an opportunity and a responsibility.
Related Concept Videos
Feedback Inhibition
SBAR II: Application of SBAR
SBAR Report from a Nurse to a Health Care Provider
S: "Hello, Dr. Smith. This is Jane, RN, from the Med Surg unit. I am calling to tell you about Ms. White in Room 210, who is experiencing increased pain and redness at her incision site. Her recent...

