title: How to "peer review" a medical journal manuscript.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The accuracy, validity, and appropriateness of what gets published in the medical literature depends upon a pool of competent peer referees. However, the requisite skills needed to become such a peer are not taught at the residency training program level or subsequently by the journals themselves, who offer no training and little written instruction.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To outline a logical, orderly approach to the task of reviewing a "raw" medical manuscript. By breaking the overall endeavor down into smaller, step-by-step components, the novice reviewer should attain the direction and skills to complete a review with confidence.
  
  
  METHODS
  Explore the role of the reviewer, discuss the philosophy of review, identify the key elements to look for when reading and rereading the manuscript, and outline a orderly approach to the decision making process.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  A "peer" is a physician with expertise on the subject under scrutiny who spends sufficient time and thought to fulfill two main obligations: to render an honest, unbiased decision on whether or not the manuscript should be published and, if it is acceptable, to help make it better. It is possible to perform the review process in a relatively simple, organized, and logical manner.
authors.forename: S J
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Salasche
mesh_terms: D016265:Conflict of Interest; D004995:Ethics, Professional; D006801:Humans; D008374:Manuscripts, Medical as Topic; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000592:standards; D011643:Publishing / Q000592:standards