On the Art and Science of Peer Review

Peer-reviewed journals and the authors who publish in them owe a tremendous amount of gratitude to the reviewers who take the time to read the manuscript submissions in depth, think carefully about them, and doublecheck references, methodologies, results, and the validity of conclusions, as well as suggest ways to strengthen manuscripts in order to improve the clarity and context of the message for the benefit of readers and the scientific community. [...]the task of finding capable and experienced reviewers is of paramount importance to the journal. Useful resources to build reviewer expertise General resources Workshops on peer reviewing Education-focused professional conferences may include workshops on how to review Free online courses Elsevier Researcher Academy’s Certified Peer Review Course [5] Springer Nature’s How to Peer Review course [6] Guidelines and articles focusing on specific manuscript types Systematic reviews and meta-analyses Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [7] Byrne [8], Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews Randomized trials Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) [9] Del Mar and Hoffman [10], A guide to performing a peer review of randomized controlled trials Educational case reports Louie et al. [...]the reviewer helps the journal editors decide the fit of a manuscript for the journal and its significance [13]. [...]the potential reviewer who is also a reader of the journal can provide the reader’s perspective in helping the editors decide whether to publish a manuscript. Common types of manuscripts published in Academic Psychiatry [14] Manuscript type Words Abstract Headings Maximum tables and figures Maximum references Empirical Report 2,500–5,000 Yes Structured as Methods, Results, Discussion 5 40 In Brief Report 1,250–2,250 Yes Structured as Methods, Results, Discussion 2 20 Systematic and Other Reviews* 2,500–5,000 Yes Structured as Methods, Results, Discussion 5 60 Educational Case Report 1,250–2,250 No Descriptive 2 20 Commentary 1,750–3,000 No Descriptive 2 30 Letter to the Editor 500–1000 No None 0 5 Faculty Viewpoint, The Learner’s Voice perspectives 750–1,000 No None 0 5 “Down to Earth” Academic Skills, Media, and Mission columns 1,750–2,500 No Descriptive 2 25 *A completed PRISMA checklist is required for reporting systematic reviews [7, 14] The process by which a journal decides to invite a particular individual to peer review varies. [...]inte