Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
The editors' guide for peer review of papers submitted to Endoscopy.
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Dinis-Ribeiro, Mário Vakil, Nimish Ponchon, Thierry |
| Copyright Year | 2012 |
| Abstract | Peer review is fundamental to the academic process and a journal’s success depends to a large extent on the quality of its reviewers. Endoscopy is one of the leading journals worldwide in gastroenterology and endoscopy and our reviewers contribute significantly to that status. A reviewer will: ▶ help the journal’s editors, as an expert in the field, to evaluate the originality of the paper (the results have not been previously published, and of course that there is no plagiarism). ▶ identify any flaws in the paper (scientific and presentational) and point out what has been done better than in other cases/studies. ▶ give constructive feedback to authors, with suggestions for improvement. ▶ comment objectively and fairly. Reviewers need to bear in mind that their own expert interest in the field might influence their attitude. They must also clarify any potential conflict of interest and declare this to the editors. ▶ send a timely response. Timely peer review is very important for authors (and a key ingredient of a journal’s success). Whatever the reviewer’s recommendation, authors appreciate a reasonably quick response even if it is negative. ▶ be aware that the paper under review is confidential: the data and findings are the exclusive property of the authors and should not be disclosed to others. Every year during EUG Week, prizes will be given to Endoscopy’s top-rated reviewers. All reviews are rated by the editors according to the following criteria: ▶ completeness of the review and accuracy of assessment of the strengths and limitations of the manuscript ▶ constructiveness of comments ▶ timeliness The aim of the present guide is to describe what the editors believe should be reported in a peer review for Endoscopy. It outlines what should be included in a confidential report to the editors on the one hand, and on the other it gives a structure for the comments to the authors. The points are summarized in a checklist in the peer review template (below). This template is also sent to reviewers when they agree to review a paper. |
| Starting Page | 48 |
| Ending Page | 50 |
| Page Count | 3 |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://endoscopy.thieme.com/c/document_library/get_file?groupId=33568&uuid=1abf60fe-7a7d-4b8a-a006-19c21b664a9b |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/doc/ATT00216.pdf |
| PubMed reference number | 23254406v1 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1326005 |
| DOI | 10.1055/s-0032-1326005 |
| Journal | Endoscopy |
| Volume Number | 45 |
| Issue Number | 1 |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Subject Keyword | Clinical Use Template Journal Manuscripts Outlines (document) Paper Peer Review Plagiarism Rating (action) Review [Publication Type] Scientific Publication |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
