Writing quality peer reviews of research manuscripts

Phillip Ward, Kim C. Graber, Hans Van Der Mars

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Peer review is an important mechanism for advancing knowledge in a manner deemed as acceptable by the research community. It can also serve the function of providing guidance to an author(s) to improve the likelihood that manuscripts will be accepted in peer reviewed journals. There is, however, little assistance for new or existing reviewers of journals beyond the guidelines for reviewers that some journals provide. Moreover, reviewers seldom, if ever, receive feedback on their reviews that might help them to provide higher quality reviews in the future. In this paper, we provide specific recommendations for drafting quality and constructive peer reviews of manuscripts. While we point to the Journal of Teaching in Physical Education as an example, our focus is on encouraging quality reviews across all journals in our field. We base our recommendations on empirical reports, recommendations of editors that have been published in the research literature, and our own experiences as reviewers. Examples of recommended and not recommended review elements are also provided.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)700-715
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Teaching in Physical Education
Volume34
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Research Peer Review
Manuscripts
peer review
Peer Review
physical education
Physical Education and Training
assistance
editor
Research
Teaching
Guidelines
community
experience

Keywords

  • Manuscript review
  • Reviewing ethics
  • Reviewing guidelines

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Education

Cite this

Writing quality peer reviews of research manuscripts. / Ward, Phillip; Graber, Kim C.; Van Der Mars, Hans.

In: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2015, p. 700-715.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ward, Phillip ; Graber, Kim C. ; Van Der Mars, Hans. / Writing quality peer reviews of research manuscripts. In: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2015 ; Vol. 34, No. 4. pp. 700-715.
@article{f4c4eb30c3c24df5a0f2425fcb37bb52,
title = "Writing quality peer reviews of research manuscripts",
abstract = "Peer review is an important mechanism for advancing knowledge in a manner deemed as acceptable by the research community. It can also serve the function of providing guidance to an author(s) to improve the likelihood that manuscripts will be accepted in peer reviewed journals. There is, however, little assistance for new or existing reviewers of journals beyond the guidelines for reviewers that some journals provide. Moreover, reviewers seldom, if ever, receive feedback on their reviews that might help them to provide higher quality reviews in the future. In this paper, we provide specific recommendations for drafting quality and constructive peer reviews of manuscripts. While we point to the Journal of Teaching in Physical Education as an example, our focus is on encouraging quality reviews across all journals in our field. We base our recommendations on empirical reports, recommendations of editors that have been published in the research literature, and our own experiences as reviewers. Examples of recommended and not recommended review elements are also provided.",
keywords = "Manuscript review, Reviewing ethics, Reviewing guidelines",
author = "Phillip Ward and Graber, {Kim C.} and {Van Der Mars}, Hans",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1123/jtpe.2014-0158",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "700--715",
journal = "Journal of Teaching in Physical Education",
issn = "0273-5024",
publisher = "Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Writing quality peer reviews of research manuscripts

AU - Ward, Phillip

AU - Graber, Kim C.

AU - Van Der Mars, Hans

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Peer review is an important mechanism for advancing knowledge in a manner deemed as acceptable by the research community. It can also serve the function of providing guidance to an author(s) to improve the likelihood that manuscripts will be accepted in peer reviewed journals. There is, however, little assistance for new or existing reviewers of journals beyond the guidelines for reviewers that some journals provide. Moreover, reviewers seldom, if ever, receive feedback on their reviews that might help them to provide higher quality reviews in the future. In this paper, we provide specific recommendations for drafting quality and constructive peer reviews of manuscripts. While we point to the Journal of Teaching in Physical Education as an example, our focus is on encouraging quality reviews across all journals in our field. We base our recommendations on empirical reports, recommendations of editors that have been published in the research literature, and our own experiences as reviewers. Examples of recommended and not recommended review elements are also provided.

AB - Peer review is an important mechanism for advancing knowledge in a manner deemed as acceptable by the research community. It can also serve the function of providing guidance to an author(s) to improve the likelihood that manuscripts will be accepted in peer reviewed journals. There is, however, little assistance for new or existing reviewers of journals beyond the guidelines for reviewers that some journals provide. Moreover, reviewers seldom, if ever, receive feedback on their reviews that might help them to provide higher quality reviews in the future. In this paper, we provide specific recommendations for drafting quality and constructive peer reviews of manuscripts. While we point to the Journal of Teaching in Physical Education as an example, our focus is on encouraging quality reviews across all journals in our field. We base our recommendations on empirical reports, recommendations of editors that have been published in the research literature, and our own experiences as reviewers. Examples of recommended and not recommended review elements are also provided.

KW - Manuscript review

KW - Reviewing ethics

KW - Reviewing guidelines

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84951014859&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84951014859&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1123/jtpe.2014-0158

DO - 10.1123/jtpe.2014-0158

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 700

EP - 715

JO - Journal of Teaching in Physical Education

JF - Journal of Teaching in Physical Education

SN - 0273-5024

IS - 4

ER -