Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2025

A Novel Single Animal Motor Function Tracking System Using Simple, Readily Available Software
Published on: August 31, 2018
Tips and tricks for how to become a good reviewer
Jonathan D Hughes1, Riccardo Cristiani2,3, Michael T Hirschmann4,5
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center, University of Pittsburgh, 3200 S. Water St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15101, USA. hughesjd3@Upmc.edu.
Scientific peer review is crucial for article quality, but suboptimal reviews are common. This article offers practical suggestions and a checklist to improve the peer-review process for better scientific publications.
Area of Science:
- Medical Education
- Scholarly Publishing
- Scientific Communication
Background:
- Peer review is integral to academic medicine, providing essential quality control for scientific articles.
- Reviewers' constructive criticism significantly enhances manuscript quality before publication.
- Suboptimal peer reviews are frequent, often due to a lack of formal reviewer training.
Discussion:
- Reviewer expertise does not always correlate with effective peer-review skills.
- The primary objective of peer review is to constructively improve the manuscript for the authors.
- Addressing the quality of peer reviews is vital for maintaining scientific integrity.
Key Insights:
- Many reviewers lack formal training in conducting effective peer reviews.
- Experienced authors may not inherently be proficient peer reviewers.
- Improving review quality directly benefits authors and the publication process.
Outlook:
- Developing standardized training for peer reviewers can enhance review quality.
- Implementing checklists can guide reviewers in providing more constructive and useful feedback.
- Future efforts should focus on optimizing the peer-review process to uphold high scientific standards.
Related Concept Videos
Review and Preview
Percentiles are a type of fractile that partition data into...
Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care...
Self-Evaluation: Self-Enhancement and Self-Verification
Critical Thinking I
Critical Thinking II
Confirmation Biases

