Consequently, there has been research into the motivation to review, 9 the time commitment involved, 9,10 and the reasons that reviewers accept and decline reviews.The reviewer database includes areas of expertise or interest, numbers of reviews made by each reviewer, the date of each reviewer's last review, and the timeliness of prior reviews. Clarification, rather than achieving consensus, was the goal of these questions. The Deputy Editor highlights important areas of the reviews that should be addressed for manuscripts invited for resubmission. Certainly every reviewer should be very familiar with the journal's policies before conducting a review. If you do decline the invitation, it would be helpful if you could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers. However, if you are recommending that the paper be rejected, just be careful not to overwhelm the author with negative feedback. These might include: Any instances where meaning is ambiguous. Open review. You can also include your reviewing work on your resume. Perhaps the best way to describe the tone of the best reviews is collegial. Let us know in the comments below! Your focus should be on providing constructive and critical feedback that the authors can use to improve their study. Once the reviews are returned to the Journal, the Deputy Editor evaluates the manuscript and makes a decision to reject, accept, or ask the author to revise the manuscript. Panelists also were asked to rate the anticipated return on investment of self-development options. This is just good form and indicates the kind of collegial and conversational style that is prevalent in the best reviews as discussed ahead.
Rounds advanced from open-ended questions regarding actions and attributes of good reviewers to consensus-seeking and clarifying questions related to quality, importance, value, and priority. Three editorial experts discuss the initiative in this on-demand webinar.
If a reviewer has performed a review, their name is blocked from selection for 3 months to assure that we do not overly burden anyone.
It is important to note that this focus was evident even in reviews where the reviewer was recommending that the manuscript be rejected. In writing this editorial we drew on the expertise of the current set of JIBS editors as well as an analysis of some of the best and not so good reviews by JIBS reviewers over the past 2 years.
Incorrect references — should other references be cited instead, or in addition? Does it need shortening and changed to another form?Becoming a reviewer is a great way to get involved with that group. If a reviewer has performed a review, their name is blocked from selection for 3 months to assure that we do not overly burden anyone. Given the complexity involved, the author has produced many positive and welcome outcomes. Do not use this space to critique the manuscript, since comments entered here will not be passed along to the authors. Elsevier plays no part in this decision. There have been increases in: enrollments in schools and colleges of pharmacy, 1 interest in pharmacy residencies and other postgraduate opportunities, the number of residency programs and sites available, and also the number of people entering into academic careers. How to log in and access your review Your review will be managed via an Elsevier submission system such as Evise. These might include: Any instances where meaning is ambiguous. Confirm whether you feel the subject of the paper is sufficiently interesting to justify its length.
Methodology If the manuscript you are reviewing is reporting an experiment, check the methods section first. It will also aid the author and allow them to improve their manuscript.
It is not length per se that is the important aspect here, but that longer reviewers were indicative of more complete and in-depth coverage of issues. Tell the journal so that they know what to expect. It also means the editor is more likely to invite you to review when they receive a submission on a related topic to your own.
And it allows authors to be systematic in responses to reviewer comments.