How to find, grow and retain good reviewers: An experience from Pakistan

Shaukat Ali Jawaid

Abstract


Despite criticism and allegations of suppressing innovative ideas, Peer Review is widely cited as central in evaluation of manuscripts submitted to journals for publication. Peer Reviewers along with editors who are known as gatekeepers help improve the quality of the manuscripts. One of the primary responsibilities of the Editor is considered to create and maintain a high quality productive group of reviewers. In order to retain good reviewers, it is essential to give them due respect, recognize their services, refrain from over burdening the good reviewers, have some CME Credit for this activity, look at different ways of rewarding the reviewers i.e. providing good reading material, books, appreciation certificates, post review thanks letters besides elevating the good efficient reviewers to the Editorial Board. Publishing their name at the end of the year, concession in publication charges if they are authors or co-authors in manuscripts received for publication besides awarding distinguished reviewers are some of the measures that can prove fruitful.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Caelleigh, AS., Shea, JA., & Penn, G. (2001). Selection and qualities of reviewers. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 914-915.

COPE Digest: Publication ethics in practice. August 2014. 2(8), Assessed on September 15th 2014.

Heroin, DF. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. The Journal of American Medical Association, 263 (10), 1438-1441.

Jawaid, SA. (2004). Problems faced by editors of peer reviewed medical journals. Saudi Medical journal, 25, Suppl 1, 447-451.

Jawaid, SA. (2008). Problems of editing a peer reviewed biomedical journal in a developing country [Editorial]. The Journal of Tehran University Heart Center, 3(4), 187-190.

Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of Academic Judgment. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press,

Kassirer, JP. & Campion, EW. (1994). Peer Review: Crude and understudied but indispensable. The Journal of American Medical Association, 272(2), 96-97.

Mahoney, MJ. (1977). Publication Prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(2), 161-175.

Rennie, D. (1999). Editorial Peer Review: Its development and Rationale in T. Jefferson & E. Godlee (Eds.), Peer Review in Health Sciences (pp.1-13). London: BMJ Books.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



E-ISSN: 2008-8310

   ISSN: 2008-8302