DisplayTitle

Serving as a peer reviewier of submitted manuscripts is an obligation of researchers in all fields of scholarly endeavor.  This presentation will examine the review process from three viewpoints, that of the reviewer, the submitting author and the journal editor in charge of the manuscript.  First and foremost, the process should be impartial and timely.  When done correctly, the reviewer pays strict attention to the scope and reqirements of the journal, maintains the confidentiality of the material under review, is cordial/collegial in tone, addresses both errors of omission (incomplete discussion of previous work, missing data, methods, etc.) and commission (incorrect or missing experimental design, misanalysis of data or misinterpretation of results). While it is generally inappropriate to attempt an extensive technical/syntactical edit, the reviewer should address the overall quality of the writing (clarity, concision, precision) and suggest remedies if not sufficient.