{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,24]],"date-time":"2026-03-24T04:30:05Z","timestamp":1774326605930,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":167,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"8","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,16]],"date-time":"2025-05-16T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1747353600000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,16]],"date-time":"2025-05-16T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1747353600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"name":"Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science Laboratory \u2013 LIACC","award":["UIDB\/00027\/2020"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["UIDB\/00027\/2020"]}]},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science Laboratory \u2013 LIACC","award":["UIDB\/00027\/2020"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["UIDB\/00027\/2020"]}]},{"DOI":"10.13039\/501100001871","name":"Funda\u00e7\u00e3o para a Ci\u00eancia e a Tecnologia","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","award":["PD\/BD\/ 2022.13474.BD"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["PD\/BD\/ 2022.13474.BD"]}],"id":[{"id":"10.13039\/501100001871","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]},{"DOI":"10.13039\/501100006752","name":"Universidade do Porto","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/501100006752","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"crossref"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Knowl Inf Syst"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2025,8]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n          <jats:p>This study examines the challenge of defining quality in peer-review reports, a crucial yet underexplored aspect of academic publishing. Reviewers are vital gatekeepers of scientific knowledge, but unclear skills and a lack of standardized guidelines have led to inconsistent and subjective practices, weakening the overall efficacy of the peer-review process. To address this issue, the primary objective of this paper is to answer the research question: How has literature addressed guidance for producing quality peer-review reports? A scoping review was conducted, utilizing Scopus, Web of Science, SpringerLink, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and SAGE databases to search for records using keywords related to guidelines for scientific peer reviewing. The review identified 111 primary studies offering recommendations on how to review scientific articles. Extracted data were analysed thematically, focusing on approaches to reviewing articles, manuscript evaluation criteria, and report-writing guidelines. The findings revealed six key categories of review criteria for evaluating scientific manuscripts: structural components, research approach, style, ethical conduct, scientific value, and overall suitability. Additionally, the review provides 70 actionable recommendations for writing peer-review reports and highlights eight essential quality features expected in review texts: constructive, specific, fair, thorough, courteous, consistent, objective, and readable feedback. This study contributes to developing a standardized guide for scientific reviewing, with a particular emphasis on supporting early-career reviewers. The findings encourage academic publishers, journal editors, and professional organizations to adopt the proposed guidelines to enhance consistency, reduce bias, and improve the peer-review process. They also provide a foundation for developing new tools to support the reviewing.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1007\/s10115-025-02435-0","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,16]],"date-time":"2025-05-16T06:11:36Z","timestamp":1747375896000},"page":"6413-6460","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":10,"title":["Defining quality in peer review reports: a scoping review"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"67","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-9516-7991","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Amanda","family":"Sizo","sequence":"first","affiliation":[]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-1403-2209","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Adriano","family":"Lino","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-0750-8187","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"\u00c1lvaro","family":"Rocha","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-4709-1718","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Lu\u00eds Paulo","family":"Reis","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,16]]},"reference":[{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"263","DOI":"10.17705\/1CAIS.03812","volume":"38","author":"J Iivari","year":"2016","unstructured":"Iivari J (2016) How to improve the quality of peer reviews? Three suggestions for system-level changes. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 38(1):263\u2013273. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.17705\/1CAIS.03812","journal-title":"Commun Assoc Inf Syst"},{"issue":"10","key":"2435_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e017468","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2017-017468","volume":"7","author":"K Glonti","year":"2017","unstructured":"Glonti K, Cauchi D, Cobo E, Boutron I, Moher D, Hren D (2017) A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals. BMJ Open 7(10):e017468. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmjopen-2017-017468","journal-title":"BMJ Open"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.giq.2018.12.002","volume":"36","author":"F Bannister","year":"2019","unstructured":"Bannister F, Janssen M (2019) The art of scholarly reviewing: principles and practices. Gov Inf Q 36(1):1\u20134. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.giq.2018.12.002","journal-title":"Gov Inf Q"},{"key":"2435_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1387","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-019-03343-1","volume":"122","author":"M Seeber","year":"2020","unstructured":"Seeber M (2020) How do journals of different rank instruct peer reviewers? Reviewer guidelines in the field of management. Scientometrics 122:1387\u20131405. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11192-019-03343-1","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"issue":"24","key":"2435_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2080","DOI":"10.2146\/ajhp170190","volume":"74","author":"RJ DiDomenico","year":"2017","unstructured":"DiDomenico RJ, Baker WL, Haines ST (2017) Improving peer review: what reviewers can do. Am J Heal Pharm 74(24):2080\u20132084. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2146\/ajhp170190","journal-title":"Am J Heal Pharm"},{"issue":"11","key":"2435_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2019-033421","volume":"9","author":"K Glonti","year":"2019","unstructured":"Glonti K, Boutron I, Moher D, Hren D (2019) Journal editors\u2019 perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 9(11):1\u201310. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmjopen-2019-033421","journal-title":"BMJ Open"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"375","DOI":"10.1007\/s11251-008-9053-x","volume":"37","author":"MM Nelson","year":"2009","unstructured":"Nelson MM, Schunn CD (2009) The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instr Sci 37(4):375\u2013401. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11251-008-9053-x","journal-title":"Instr Sci"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1076","DOI":"10.1086\/688856","volume":"35","author":"GJ Scrimgeour","year":"2016","unstructured":"Scrimgeour GJ, Pruss SD (2016) Writing highly effective reviews of a scientific manuscript. Freshw Sci 35(4):1076\u20131081. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1086\/688856","journal-title":"Freshw Sci"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"96","DOI":"10.1016\/S0873-2159(11)70022-8","volume":"17","author":"JC Winck","year":"2011","unstructured":"Winck JC, Fonseca JA, Azevedo LF, Wedzicha JA (2011) To publish or perish: how to review a manuscript. Rev Port Pneumol 17(2):96\u2013103. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/S0873-2159(11)70022-8","journal-title":"Rev Port Pneumol"},{"issue":"9","key":"2435_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"36","DOI":"10.3102\/0013189X035009036","volume":"35","author":"B Graue","year":"2006","unstructured":"Graue B (2006) The transformative power of reviewing. Educ Res 35(9):36\u201341. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3102\/0013189X035009036","journal-title":"Educ Res"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"591","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-006-0171-4","volume":"69","author":"UW Jayasinghe","year":"2006","unstructured":"Jayasinghe UW, Marsh HW, Bond N (2006) A new reader trial approach to peer review in funding research grants: an Australian experiment. Scientometrics 69(3):591\u2013606. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11192-006-0171-4","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1080\/02602938.2022.2164757","volume":"49","author":"SW Chong","year":"2024","unstructured":"Chong SW, Lin T (2024) Feedback practices in journal peer-review: a systematic literature review. Assess Eval High Educ 49(1):1\u201312. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/02602938.2022.2164757","journal-title":"Assess Eval High Educ"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"339","DOI":"10.1177\/1534484318809724","volume":"17","author":"J Wang","year":"2018","unstructured":"Wang J (2018) Making a difference through quality manuscript review. Hum Resour Dev Rev 17(4):339\u2013348. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1534484318809724","journal-title":"Hum Resour Dev Rev"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1186\/s41073-020-00092-1","volume":"5","author":"JP Tennant","year":"2020","unstructured":"Tennant JP, Ross-Hellauer T (2020) The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 5(1):1\u201314. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s41073-020-00092-1","journal-title":"Res Integr Peer Rev"},{"issue":"7","key":"2435_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"625","DOI":"10.1016\/S0895-4356(99)00047-5","volume":"52","author":"S Van Rooyen","year":"1999","unstructured":"Van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F (1999) Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol 52(7):625\u2013629. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/S0895-4356(99)00047-5","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"2435_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Cozza V, Petrocchi M, Spognardi A (2016) A matter of words: NLP for quality evaluation of wikipedia medical articles. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including Subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinf) 9671: 448\u2013456. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-319-38791-8_31\/TABLES\/3","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-38791-8_31\/TABLES\/3"},{"key":"2435_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kang D et al (2018) A dataset of peer reviews (PeerRead): Collection, insights and NLP applications. In: NAACL HLT 2018\u20132018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies\u2014Proceedings of the Conference, pp. 1647\u20131661","DOI":"10.18653\/v1\/N18-1149"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"178","DOI":"10.1177\/014107680609900414","volume":"99","author":"R Smith","year":"2006","unstructured":"Smith R (2006) Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 99(4):178\u2013182. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/014107680609900414","journal-title":"J R Soc Med"},{"issue":"12","key":"2435_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e8247","DOI":"10.7717\/PEERJ.8247\/SUPP-4","volume":"2019","author":"NJ Silbiger","year":"2019","unstructured":"Silbiger NJ, Stubler AD (2019) Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ 2019(12):e8247. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7717\/PEERJ.8247\/SUPP-4","journal-title":"PeerJ"},{"key":"2435_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1186\/s41073-020-00096-x","author":"TG Gerwing","year":"2020","unstructured":"Gerwing TG, Allen AM, Gerwing S-G, Choi C-Y, Clements JC, Rash JA (2020) Quantifying professionalism in peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s41073-020-00096-x","journal-title":"Res Integr Peer Rev"},{"key":"2435_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-019-0688-x","author":"C Superchi","year":"2019","unstructured":"Superchi C, Gonz\u00e1lez JA, Sol\u00e0 I, Cobo E, Hren D, Boutron I (2019) Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12874-019-0688-x","journal-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"18","DOI":"10.1016\/j.outlook.2008.05.006","volume":"57","author":"SJ Henly","year":"2009","unstructured":"Henly SJ, Dougherty MC (2009) Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research. Nurs Outlook 57(1):18\u201326. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.outlook.2008.05.006","journal-title":"Nurs Outlook"},{"key":"2435_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"K\u00fchne C, B\u00f6hm K, Yue JZ (2010) Reviewing the reviewers: a study of author perception on peer reviews in computer science. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing, CollaborateCom 2010, IEEE Computer Society","DOI":"10.4108\/icst.collaboratecom.2010.33"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"187","DOI":"10.1002\/LEAP.1344","volume":"34","author":"SM Prani\u0107","year":"2021","unstructured":"Prani\u0107 SM, Mali\u010dki M, Maru\u0161i\u0107 SL, Mehmani B, Maru\u0161i\u0107 A (2021) Is the quality of reviews reflected in editors\u2019 and authors\u2019 satisfaction with peer review? A cross-sectional study in 12 journals across four research fields. Learn Publ 34(2):187\u2013197. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/LEAP.1344","journal-title":"Learn Publ"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e0259238","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0259238","volume":"17","author":"T Ghosal","year":"2022","unstructured":"Ghosal T, Kumar S, Bharti PK, Ekbal A (2022) Peer review analyze: a novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews. PLoS ONE 17(1):e0259238. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0259238","journal-title":"PLoS ONE"},{"key":"2435_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"286","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijinfomgt.2018.07.002","volume":"46","author":"A Sizo","year":"2019","unstructured":"Sizo A, Lino A, Reis LP, Rocha \u00c1 (2019) An overview of assessing the quality of peer review reports of scientific articles. Int J Inf Manage 46:286\u2013293. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ijinfomgt.2018.07.002","journal-title":"Int J Inf Manage"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1002\/lob.10217","volume":"27","author":"LJ Falkenberg","year":"2018","unstructured":"Falkenberg LJ, Soranno PA (2018) Reviewing reviews: an evaluation of peer reviews of journal article submissions. Limnol Oceanogr Bull 27(1):1\u20135. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/lob.10217","journal-title":"Limnol Oceanogr Bull"},{"issue":"24","key":"2435_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"88","DOI":"10.1145\/3640543.3645169","volume":"15","author":"SP Neshaei","year":"2024","unstructured":"Neshaei SP, Rietsche R, Su X, Wambsganss T (2024) Enhancing peer review with AI-powered suggestion generation assistance: investigating the design dynamics. ACM Int Conf Proceeding Ser 15(24):88\u2013102. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/3640543.3645169","journal-title":"ACM Int Conf Proceeding Ser"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"27","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jeap.2008.02.004","volume":"7","author":"I Fortanet","year":"2008","unstructured":"Fortanet I (2008) Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. J English Acad Purp 7(1):27\u201337. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jeap.2008.02.004","journal-title":"J English Acad Purp"},{"issue":"5","key":"2435_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1057","DOI":"10.1108\/OIR-11-2019-0347","volume":"44","author":"M Thelwall","year":"2020","unstructured":"Thelwall M, Papas E-R, Nyakoojo Z, Allen L, Weigert V (2020) Automatically detecting open academic review praise and criticism. Online Inf Rev 44(5):1057\u20131076. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1108\/OIR-11-2019-0347","journal-title":"Online Inf Rev"},{"key":"2435_CR31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.7554\/eLife.53249","author":"I Buljan","year":"2020","unstructured":"Buljan I, Garcia-Costa D, Grimaldo F, Squazzoni F, Maru\u0161i\u0107 A (2020) Meta-research: large-scale language analysis of peer review reports. Elife. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7554\/eLife.53249","journal-title":"Elife"},{"key":"2435_CR32","unstructured":"Bharti P, Ghosal T, Agarwal M, Ekbal A (2022) A method for automatically estimating the informativeness of peer reviews. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Natural Language Processing (ICON), pp. 280\u2013289. Accessed: Aug. 13, 2024"},{"key":"2435_CR33","unstructured":"Liu C, Cui J, Shang R, Jia Q, Rashid P, Gehringer E (2024) Generative AI for peer assessment helpfulness evaluation, pp 412\u2013419"},{"key":"2435_CR34","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Su X, Wambsganss T, Rietsche R, Neshaei SP, K\u00e4ser T (2023) Reviewriter: AI-generated instructions for peer review writing. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp 57\u201371","DOI":"10.18653\/v1\/2023.bea-1.5"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1186\/s41073-023-00133-5","volume":"8","author":"M Hosseini","year":"2023","unstructured":"Hosseini M, Horbach SPJM (2023) Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 8(4):1\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s41073-023-00133-5","journal-title":"Res Integr Peer Rev"},{"issue":"11","key":"2435_CR36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1272","DOI":"10.1038\/s42256-024-00922-7","volume":"6","author":"S Porsdam Mann","year":"2024","unstructured":"Porsdam Mann S et al (2024) Guidelines for ethical use and acknowledgement of large language models in academic writing. Nat Mach Intell 6(11):1272\u20131274. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s42256-024-00922-7","journal-title":"Nat Mach Intell"},{"key":"2435_CR37","unstructured":"Zhou R, Chen L, Yu K (2024) Is LLM a reliable reviewer? A comprehensive evaluation of LLM on automatic paper reviewing tasks"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"19","DOI":"10.1080\/1364557032000119616","volume":"8","author":"H Arksey","year":"2005","unstructured":"Arksey H, O\u2019Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 8(1):19\u201332. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/1364557032000119616","journal-title":"Int J Soc Res Methodol"},{"issue":"7","key":"2435_CR39","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"467","DOI":"10.7326\/M18-0850","volume":"169","author":"AC Tricco","year":"2018","unstructured":"Tricco AC et al (2018) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 169(7):467\u2013473. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7326\/M18-0850","journal-title":"Ann Intern Med"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR40","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0193148","volume":"13","author":"F Grimaldo","year":"2018","unstructured":"Grimaldo F, Maru\u0161i\u0107 A, Squazzoni F (2018) Fragments of peer review: a quantitative analysis of the literature (1969\u20132015). PLoS ONE 13(2):1\u201314. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0193148","journal-title":"PLoS ONE"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR41","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"188","DOI":"10.1097\/XEB.0000000000000060","volume":"13","author":"A McArthur","year":"2015","unstructured":"McArthur A, Klug\u00e1rov\u00e1 J, Yan H, Florescu S (2015) Innovations in the systematic review of text and opinion. Int J Evid Based Healthc 13(3):188\u2013195. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/XEB.0000000000000060","journal-title":"Int J Evid Based Healthc"},{"key":"2435_CR42","unstructured":"Saldana J (2016) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications Ltd"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR43","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"45","DOI":"10.1177\/135581960501000110","volume":"10","author":"M Dixon-Woods","year":"2005","unstructured":"Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A (2005) Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy 10(1):45\u201353. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/135581960501000110","journal-title":"J Health Serv Res Policy"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR44","first-page":"92","volume":"34","author":"JM Provenzale","year":"2006","unstructured":"Provenzale JM, Stanley RJ (2006) A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. J Nucl Med Technol 34(2):92\u201399","journal-title":"J Nucl Med Technol"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR45","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"93","DOI":"10.1080\/10899995.2018.1451712","volume":"66","author":"AE Egger","year":"2018","unstructured":"Egger AE (2018) Calling all peer reviewers! Why and how to review for JGE. J Geosci Educ 66(2):93\u201396. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/10899995.2018.1451712","journal-title":"J Geosci Educ"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR46","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"395","DOI":"10.1592\/phco.21.5.395.34493","volume":"21","author":"LM Sylvia","year":"2001","unstructured":"Sylvia LM, Herbel JL (2001) Manuscript peer review\u2014a guide for health care professionals. Pharmacotherapy 21(4):395\u2013404. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1592\/phco.21.5.395.34493","journal-title":"Pharmacotherapy"},{"issue":"28","key":"2435_CR47","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"233","DOI":"10.1029\/2011EO280001","volume":"92","author":"K Nicholas","year":"2011","unstructured":"Nicholas K, Gordon W (2011) A quick guide to writing a solid peer review. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 92(28):233\u2013234. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1029\/2011EO280001","journal-title":"Eos Trans Am Geophys Union"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR48","first-page":"326","volume":"46","author":"M Marusi\u0107","year":"2005","unstructured":"Marusi\u0107 M, Sambunjak D, Marusi\u0107 A (2005) Guide for peer reviewers of scientific articles in the Croatian medical journal. Croat Med J 46(2):326\u2013332","journal-title":"Croat Med J"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR49","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"255","DOI":"10.1192\/BJA.2020.62","volume":"27","author":"N Halder","year":"2021","unstructured":"Halder N, Tyrer P, Casey P (2021) Peer reviewing made easier: your questions answered. BJPsych Adv 27(4):255\u2013262. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1192\/BJA.2020.62","journal-title":"BJPsych Adv"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR50","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"11","DOI":"10.1001\/archpedi.156.1.11","volume":"156","author":"P Cummings","year":"2002","unstructured":"Cummings P, Rivara FP (2002) Reviewing manuscripts for archives of pediatrics and adolescent medicine. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 156(1):11\u201313. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1001\/archpedi.156.1.11","journal-title":"Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR51","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"184","DOI":"10.1007\/BF03262804","volume":"12","author":"MEJ Curzon","year":"2011","unstructured":"Curzon MEJ, Cleaton-Jones PE (2011) Reviewing scientific manuscripts. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 12(4):184\u2013187. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/BF03262804","journal-title":"Eur Arch Paediatr Dent"},{"issue":"8","key":"2435_CR52","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1028","DOI":"10.1177\/0192623317742616","volume":"45","author":"SA Elmore","year":"2017","unstructured":"Elmore SA (2017) Update on the manuscript peer review process. Toxicol Pathol 45(8):1028\u20131031. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0192623317742616","journal-title":"Toxicol Pathol"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR53","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.21037\/atm.2017.12.15","volume":"6","author":"G Lippi","year":"2018","unstructured":"Lippi G (2018) How do I peer-review a scientific article?\u2014a personal perspective. Ann Transl Med 6(3):1\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.21037\/atm.2017.12.15","journal-title":"Ann Transl Med"},{"issue":"8","key":"2435_CR54","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1019","DOI":"10.1164\/rccm.200204-324OE","volume":"166","author":"FG Hoppin","year":"2002","unstructured":"Hoppin FG (2002) How I review an original scientific article. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 166(8):1019\u20131023. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1164\/rccm.200204-324OE","journal-title":"Am J Respir Crit Care Med"},{"issue":"6","key":"2435_CR55","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"423","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1524-4725.1997.tb00081.x","volume":"23","author":"SJ Salasche","year":"1997","unstructured":"Salasche SJ (1997) How to \u2018peer review\u2019 a medical journal manuscript. Dermatol Surg 23(6):423\u2013428. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1524-4725.1997.tb00081.x","journal-title":"Dermatol Surg"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR56","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"251","DOI":"10.1177\/0016986218754495","volume":"62","author":"KE Snyder","year":"2018","unstructured":"Snyder KE (2018) How to become a more effective reviewer. Gift Child Q 62(2):251\u2013254. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0016986218754495","journal-title":"Gift Child Q"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR57","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"151","DOI":"10.4081\/itjm.2018.1016","volume":"12","author":"P Gnerre","year":"2018","unstructured":"Gnerre P et al (2018) How to choose and become a reviewer for a scientific medical journal. Ital J Med 12(2):151\u2013158. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4081\/itjm.2018.1016","journal-title":"Ital J Med"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR58","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"219","DOI":"10.2308\/iace-50748","volume":"31","author":"DK Oler","year":"2016","unstructured":"Oler DK, Pasewark WR (2016) How to review a paper. Issues Acc Educ 31(2):219\u2013234. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2308\/iace-50748","journal-title":"Issues Acc Educ"},{"key":"2435_CR59","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"124","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajp.2014.08.007","volume":"11","author":"R Tandon","year":"2014","unstructured":"Tandon R (2014) How to review a scientific paper. Asian J Psychiatr 11:124\u2013127. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajp.2014.08.007","journal-title":"Asian J Psychiatr"},{"issue":"11","key":"2435_CR60","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1520","DOI":"10.1373\/clinchem.2012.195529","volume":"58","author":"TM Annesley","year":"2012","unstructured":"Annesley TM (2012) Now you be the judge. Clin Chem 58(11):1520\u20131526. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1373\/clinchem.2012.195529","journal-title":"Clin Chem"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR61","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"43","DOI":"10.70252\/URYH3384","volume":"1","author":"KJ Simpson","year":"2008","unstructured":"Simpson KJ (2008) Reviewing an original research manuscript for the international journal of exercise science: a guide for students and professionals. Int J Exerc Sci 1(2):43\u201349","journal-title":"Int J Exerc Sci"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR62","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"129","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmir.2016.01.005","volume":"47","author":"G Currie","year":"2016","unstructured":"Currie G, McCuaig C, Di Prospero L (2016) Systematically reviewing a journal manuscript: a guideline for health reviewers. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 47(2):129-138.e3. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jmir.2016.01.005","journal-title":"J Med Imaging Radiat Sci"},{"issue":"12","key":"2435_CR63","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"916","DOI":"10.7556\/jaoa.2013.070","volume":"113","author":"TW Allen","year":"2013","unstructured":"Allen TW (2013) Peer review guidance: how do you write a good review? J Osteopath Med 113(12):916\u2013920. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7556\/jaoa.2013.070","journal-title":"J Osteopath Med"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR64","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"81","DOI":"10.1176\/appi.ap.28.2.81","volume":"28","author":"LW Roberts","year":"2004","unstructured":"Roberts LW, Coverdale J, Edenharder K, Louie A (2004) How to review a manuscript: a \u2018down-to-earth\u2019 approach. Acad Psychiatry 28(2):81\u201387. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1176\/appi.ap.28.2.81","journal-title":"Acad Psychiatry"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR65","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"94","DOI":"10.1177\/1078155218761222","volume":"25","author":"DV Smith","year":"2019","unstructured":"Smith DV, Stokes LB, Marx K, Aitken SL (2019) Navigating manuscript assessment: the new practitioner\u2019s guide to primary literature peer review. J Oncol Pharm Pract 25(1):94\u2013100. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1078155218761222","journal-title":"J Oncol Pharm Pract"},{"issue":"5","key":"2435_CR66","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"359","DOI":"10.1177\/8756479319853800","volume":"35","author":"SC Roll","year":"2019","unstructured":"Roll SC (2019) The value and process of high-quality peer review in scientific professional journals. J Diagn Med Sonogr 35(5):359\u2013362. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/8756479319853800","journal-title":"J Diagn Med Sonogr"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR67","first-page":"364","volume":"92","author":"LB Sollaci","year":"2004","unstructured":"Sollaci LB, Pereira MG (2004) The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. J Med Libr Assoc 92(3):364\u2013367","journal-title":"J Med Libr Assoc"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR68","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"32","DOI":"10.7812\/TPP\/09-088","volume":"14","author":"GM Garmel","year":"2010","unstructured":"Garmel GM (2010) Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals. Perm J 14(1):32\u201340","journal-title":"Perm J"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR69","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"472","DOI":"10.1016\/j.otohns.2010.02.010","volume":"142","author":"RM Rosenfeld","year":"2010","unstructured":"Rosenfeld RM (2010) How to review journal manuscripts. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 142(4):472\u2013486. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.otohns.2010.02.010","journal-title":"Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR70","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"102","DOI":"10.1177\/1474515113476605","volume":"12","author":"T Jaarsma","year":"2013","unstructured":"Jaarsma T et al (2013) A good manuscript review for the European journal of cardiovascular nursing. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 12(2):102\u2013103. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1474515113476605","journal-title":"Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR71","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"113","DOI":"10.1093\/jpepsy\/jsn142","volume":"34","author":"D Drotar","year":"2009","unstructured":"Drotar D (2009) Editorial: how to write effective reviews for the journal of pediatric psychology. J Pediatr Psychol 34(2):113\u2013117. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/jpepsy\/jsn142","journal-title":"J Pediatr Psychol"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR72","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"44","DOI":"10.1177\/193758671100400304","volume":"4","author":"JF Stichler","year":"2011","unstructured":"Stichler JF (2011) Peer review and the development of a science. Heal Environ Res Des J 4(3):44\u201349. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/193758671100400304","journal-title":"Heal Environ Res Des J"},{"issue":"13","key":"2435_CR73","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"4871","DOI":"10.1080\/01431161.2019.1596342","volume":"40","author":"TA Warner","year":"2019","unstructured":"Warner TA (2019) How to write an effective peer-review report: an editor\u2019s perspective. Int J Remote Sens 40(13):4871\u20134875. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/01431161.2019.1596342","journal-title":"Int J Remote Sens"},{"issue":"7","key":"2435_CR74","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1314","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jacc.2003.08.020","volume":"42","author":"AN DeMaria","year":"2003","unstructured":"DeMaria AN (2003) What constitutes a great review? J Am Coll Cardiol 42(7):1314\u20131315. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jacc.2003.08.020","journal-title":"J Am Coll Cardiol"},{"key":"2435_CR75","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"25","DOI":"10.4033\/iee.2011.4.4.c","volume":"4","author":"C Lepczyk","year":"2011","unstructured":"Lepczyk C, Donnelly R (2011) A beginner\u2019s guide to reviewing manuscripts in ecology and conservation. Ideas Ecol Evol 4:25\u201331. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4033\/iee.2011.4.4.c","journal-title":"Ideas Ecol Evol"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR76","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S52","DOI":"10.1152\/advances.2000.23.1.s52","volume":"23","author":"DR Seals","year":"2000","unstructured":"Seals DR, Tanaka H (2000) Manuscript peer review: a helpful checklist for students and novice referees. Adv Physiol Educ 23(1):S52-58. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1152\/advances.2000.23.1.s52","journal-title":"Adv Physiol Educ"},{"issue":"6","key":"2435_CR77","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"547","DOI":"10.1057\/jibs.2013.24","volume":"44","author":"P Caligiuri","year":"2013","unstructured":"Caligiuri P, Thomas DC (2013) From the editors: how to write a high-quality review. J Int Bus Stud 44(6):547\u2013553. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1057\/jibs.2013.24","journal-title":"J Int Bus Stud"},{"issue":"5","key":"2435_CR78","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"468","DOI":"10.1016\/J.JACLP.2023.01.011","volume":"64","author":"MA Oldham","year":"2023","unstructured":"Oldham MA, Kontos N, Baller E, Cerimele JM (2023) JACLP guide for manuscript peer review: how to perform a peer review and how to be responsive to reviewer comments. J Acad Consult Psychiatry 64(5):468\u2013472. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/J.JACLP.2023.01.011","journal-title":"J Acad Consult Psychiatry"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR79","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"215","DOI":"10.1016\/j.gastrohep.2022.03.005","volume":"46","author":"JP Gisbert","year":"2023","unstructured":"Gisbert JP, Chaparro M (2023) Tips and guidelines for being a good peer reviewer. Gastroenterol Hepatol 46(3):215\u2013235. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.gastrohep.2022.03.005","journal-title":"Gastroenterol Hepatol"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR80","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"421","DOI":"10.1177\/10915818241254582","volume":"43","author":"MB Genter","year":"2024","unstructured":"Genter MB (2024) So you want to be a peer reviewer? Int J Toxicol 43(4):421\u2013424. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/10915818241254582","journal-title":"Int J Toxicol"},{"issue":"9","key":"2435_CR81","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2750","DOI":"10.1111\/FEBS.15705","volume":"288","author":"P Dhillon","year":"2021","unstructured":"Dhillon P (2021) How to be a good peer reviewer of scientific manuscripts. FEBS J 288(9):2750\u20132756. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/FEBS.15705","journal-title":"FEBS J"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR82","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"47","DOI":"10.1152\/advan.00057.2002","volume":"27","author":"DJ Benos","year":"2003","unstructured":"Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE (2003) How to review a paper. Adv Physiol Educ 27(2):47\u201352. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1152\/advan.00057.2002","journal-title":"Adv Physiol Educ"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR83","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"243","DOI":"10.1159\/000228588","volume":"28","author":"AV Alexandrov","year":"2009","unstructured":"Alexandrov AV, Hennerici MG, Norrving B (2009) Suggestions for reviewing manuscripts. Cerebrovasc Dis 28(3):243\u2013246. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1159\/000228588","journal-title":"Cerebrovasc Dis"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR84","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"189","DOI":"10.1007\/s10897-014-9802-8","volume":"24","author":"V Venne","year":"2015","unstructured":"Venne V (2015) Reviewing manuscripts for the journal of genetic counseling: practical suggestions. J Genet Couns 24(2):189\u2013192. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10897-014-9802-8","journal-title":"J Genet Couns"},{"issue":"5","key":"2435_CR85","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"860","DOI":"10.1093\/JCR\/UCW066","volume":"43","author":"R Bagchi","year":"2017","unstructured":"Bagchi R, Block L, Hamilton RW, Ozanne JL (2017) A field guide for the review process: writing and responding to peer reviews. J Consum Res 43(5):860\u2013872. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/JCR\/UCW066","journal-title":"J Consum Res"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR86","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"92","DOI":"10.1145\/74074.74090","volume":"20","author":"I Parberry","year":"1989","unstructured":"Parberry I (1989) A guide for new referees in theoretical computer science. ACM SIGACT News 20(4):92\u201399. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/74074.74090","journal-title":"ACM SIGACT News"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR87","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"113","DOI":"10.1007\/s10995-005-2423-y","volume":"9","author":"GR Alexander","year":"2005","unstructured":"Alexander GR (2005) A guide to reviewing manuscripts. Matern Child Health J 9(1):113\u2013117. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10995-005-2423-y","journal-title":"Matern Child Health J"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR88","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1238","DOI":"10.1016\/J.JCEH.2022.04.006","volume":"12","author":"K Siau","year":"2022","unstructured":"Siau K, Kulkarni AV, El-Omar E (2022) How to be a good reviewer for a scientific journal. J Clin Exp Hepatol 12(4):1238\u20131243. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/J.JCEH.2022.04.006","journal-title":"J Clin Exp Hepatol"},{"key":"2435_CR89","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"A1","DOI":"10.1016\/J.IJNURSTU.2016.09.011","volume":"64","author":"J Kottner","year":"2016","unstructured":"Kottner J, Norman I (2016) How to peer review and revise manuscripts submitted for publication in academic nursing journals. Int J Nurs Stud 64:A1\u2013A3. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/J.IJNURSTU.2016.09.011","journal-title":"Int J Nurs Stud"},{"issue":"12","key":"2435_CR90","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1385","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2010.09.001","volume":"63","author":"M Spigt","year":"2010","unstructured":"Spigt M, Arts ICW (2010) How to review a manuscript. J Clin Epidemiol 63(12):1385\u20131390. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2010.09.001","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR91","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.surg.2017.05.001","volume":"162","author":"DW McFadden","year":"2017","unstructured":"McFadden DW, LeMaire SA, Sarr MG, Behrns KE (2017) How to review a paper: suggestions from the editors of surgery and the journal of surgical research. Surg (United States) 162(1):1\u20136. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.surg.2017.05.001","journal-title":"Surg (United States)"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR92","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"862","DOI":"10.1038\/s41390-023-02979-3","volume":"95","author":"EJ Molloy","year":"2023","unstructured":"Molloy EJ, Overbey L, Bearer CF (2023) How to review a scientific manuscript and get credit! Pediatr Res 95(4):862\u2013863. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41390-023-02979-3","journal-title":"Pediatr Res"},{"issue":"10","key":"2435_CR93","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1243","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jcrs.2017.10.017","volume":"43","author":"T Kohnen","year":"2017","unstructured":"Kohnen T (2017) How to write a good peer review. J Cataract Refract Surg 43(10):1243\u20131244. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jcrs.2017.10.017","journal-title":"J Cataract Refract Surg"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR94","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"700","DOI":"10.1123\/jtpe.2014-0158","volume":"34","author":"P Ward","year":"2015","unstructured":"Ward P, Graber KC, van der Mars H (2015) Writing quality peer reviews of research manuscripts. J Teach Phys Educ 34(4):700\u2013715. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1123\/jtpe.2014-0158","journal-title":"J Teach Phys Educ"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR95","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"201","DOI":"10.1093\/arclin\/acp031","volume":"24","author":"K Duff","year":"2009","unstructured":"Duff K et al (2009) On becoming a peer reviewer for a neuropsychology journal. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 24(3):201\u2013207. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/arclin\/acp031","journal-title":"Arch Clin Neuropsychol"},{"key":"2435_CR96","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"307","DOI":"10.1016\/J.CLNESP.2023.12.023","volume":"59","author":"NE Deutz","year":"2024","unstructured":"Deutz NE, Delzenne N, Davies NA, Lobo DN (2024) Presentation and publication skills: how to review a paper. Clin Nutr ESPEN 59:307\u2013311. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/J.CLNESP.2023.12.023","journal-title":"Clin Nutr ESPEN"},{"issue":"11","key":"2435_CR97","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E409","DOI":"10.1542\/hpeds.2022-006764","volume":"12","author":"EP Lu","year":"2022","unstructured":"Lu EP, Fischer BG, Plesac MA, Olson APJ (2022) Research methods: how to perform an effective peer review. Hosp Pediatr 12(11):E409\u2013E413. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1542\/hpeds.2022-006764","journal-title":"Hosp Pediatr"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR98","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"87","DOI":"10.1177\/1080569906287960","volume":"13","author":"AS Lee","year":"1995","unstructured":"Lee AS (1995) Reviewing a manuscript for publication. J Oper Manag 13(1):87\u201392. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1080569906287960","journal-title":"J Oper Manag"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR99","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"157","DOI":"10.1093\/JBI\/WBZ041","volume":"1","author":"JA Harvey","year":"2019","unstructured":"Harvey JA (2019) Reviewing is mentoring: how to write a great review. J Breast Imaging 1(3):157\u2013158. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/JBI\/WBZ041","journal-title":"J Breast Imaging"},{"issue":"11","key":"2435_CR100","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2265","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1537-2995.2009.02390.x","volume":"49","author":"NM Heddle","year":"2009","unstructured":"Heddle NM, Ness PM (2009) Reviewing manuscripts: tips and responsibilities. Transfusion 49(11):2265\u20132268. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1537-2995.2009.02390.x","journal-title":"Transfusion"},{"issue":"5","key":"2435_CR101","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"441","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jpag.2018.06.005","volume":"31","author":"GS Sucato","year":"2018","unstructured":"Sucato GS, Holland-Hall C (2018) Reviewing manuscripts: a systematic approach. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 31(5):441\u2013445. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jpag.2018.06.005","journal-title":"J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR102","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1081","DOI":"10.1046\/J.1523-1755.2002.00532.X","volume":"62","author":"J Lemann","year":"2002","unstructured":"Lemann J (2002) Serving as a reviewer. Kidney Int 62(3):1081\u20131087. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1046\/J.1523-1755.2002.00532.X","journal-title":"Kidney Int"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR103","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"538","DOI":"10.1055\/S-0042-1744413\/ID\/JR21073-26","volume":"49","author":"M Frendo","year":"2022","unstructured":"Frendo M, Frithioff A, Andersen SAW (2022) Ten tips for performing your first peer review: the next step for the aspiring academic plastic surgeon. Arch Plast Surg 49(4):538\u2013542. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1055\/S-0042-1744413\/ID\/JR21073-26","journal-title":"Arch Plast Surg"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR104","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.dhjo.2016.10.009","volume":"10","author":"S McDermott","year":"2017","unstructured":"McDermott S, Turk MA (2017) The art of manuscript review\u2014and manuscript development. Disabil Health J 10(1):1\u20132. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.dhjo.2016.10.009","journal-title":"Disabil Health J"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR105","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"470","DOI":"10.1053\/J.SEMVASCSURG.2022.10.002","volume":"35","author":"ML Weaver","year":"2022","unstructured":"Weaver ML et al (2022) The art of peer review: guidelines to become a credible and constructive peer reviewer. Semin Vasc Surg 35(4):470\u2013478. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1053\/J.SEMVASCSURG.2022.10.002","journal-title":"Semin Vasc Surg"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR106","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"65","DOI":"10.1109\/2.55470","volume":"23","author":"AJ Smith","year":"1990","unstructured":"Smith AJ (1990) The task of the referee. Comput (Long Beach Calif) 23(4):65\u201371. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1109\/2.55470","journal-title":"Comput (Long Beach Calif)"},{"issue":"11","key":"2435_CR107","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2873","DOI":"10.1111\/ejn.13423","volume":"44","author":"B David","year":"2016","unstructured":"David B, Karadottir RT (2016) Writing a constructive peer review: a young PI perspective. Eur J Neurosci 44(11):2873\u20132876. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/ejn.13423","journal-title":"Eur J Neurosci"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR108","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"iii","DOI":"10.25300\/MISQ\/2016\/40.3.E0","volume":"40","author":"A Rai","year":"2016","unstructured":"Rai A (2016) Editor\u2019s comments: writing a virtuous review. MIS Q 40(3):iii\u2013x","journal-title":"MIS Q"},{"issue":"7","key":"2435_CR109","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1028","DOI":"10.1373\/clinchem.2013.208280","volume":"59","author":"TM Annesley","year":"2013","unstructured":"Annesley TM (2013) Writing an Effective manuscript review: the 6 \u2018Be\u2019s\u2019 to success. Clin Chem 59(7):1028\u20131035. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1373\/clinchem.2013.208280","journal-title":"Clin Chem"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR110","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"48","DOI":"10.1055\/S-0032-1326005\/ID\/JR684-10","volume":"45","author":"M Dinis-Ribeiro","year":"2013","unstructured":"Dinis-Ribeiro M, Vakil N, Ponchon T (2013) The editors\u2019 guide for peer review of papers submitted to endoscopy. Endoscopy 45(1):48\u201350. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1055\/S-0032-1326005\/ID\/JR684-10","journal-title":"Endoscopy"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR111","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"109","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jelectrocard.2016.01.001","volume":"49","author":"JA Hill","year":"2016","unstructured":"Hill JA (2016) How to review a manuscript. J Electrocardiol 49(2):109\u2013111. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jelectrocard.2016.01.001","journal-title":"J Electrocardiol"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR112","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"389","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2008.04.011","volume":"15","author":"KI Bajzak","year":"2008","unstructured":"Bajzak KI, Levy BS, Munro MG (2008) A guide to manuscript review for the journal of minimally invasive gynecology. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(4):389\u2013392. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jmig.2008.04.011","journal-title":"J Minim Invasive Gynecol"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR113","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"387","DOI":"10.1016\/j.acra.2023.01.002","volume":"30","author":"NR Dunnick","year":"2023","unstructured":"Dunnick NR (2023) Becoming an effective manuscript reviewer. Acad Radiol 30(3):387\u2013389. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.acra.2023.01.002","journal-title":"Acad Radiol"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR114","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"261","DOI":"10.1016\/j.sapharm.2019.04.054","volume":"16","author":"SP Desselle","year":"2020","unstructured":"Desselle SP et al (2020) Generosity, collegiality, and scientific accuracy when writing and reviewing original research. Res Soc Adm Pharm 16(2):261\u2013265. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.sapharm.2019.04.054","journal-title":"Res Soc Adm Pharm"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR115","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"202","DOI":"10.1111\/jbl.12137","volume":"37","author":"W Zinn","year":"2016","unstructured":"Zinn W, Goldsby TJ (2016) The \u2018invisible hands\u2019 in research: the critical roles of reviewers and associate editors. J Bus Logist 37(3):202\u2013204. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/jbl.12137","journal-title":"J Bus Logist"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR116","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"392","DOI":"10.1080\/0312407X.2015.1010554","volume":"68","author":"C Tilbury","year":"2015","unstructured":"Tilbury C (2015) Reviewing manuscripts for Australian social work. Aust Soc Work 68(3):392\u2013396. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/0312407X.2015.1010554","journal-title":"Aust Soc Work"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR117","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1007\/s12160-011-9269-x","volume":"42","author":"TI Lovejoy","year":"2011","unstructured":"Lovejoy TI, Revenson TA, France CR (2011) Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Ann Behav Med 42(1):1\u201313. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s12160-011-9269-x","journal-title":"Ann Behav Med"},{"issue":"5","key":"2435_CR118","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1365","DOI":"10.1016\/j.athoracsur.2017.02.015","volume":"103","author":"LM Brown","year":"2017","unstructured":"Brown LM, David EA, Karamlou T, Nason KS (2017) Reviewing scientific manuscripts: a comprehensive guide for peer reviewers. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 103(5):1365\u20131370. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.athoracsur.2017.02.015","journal-title":"J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR119","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"296","DOI":"10.1080\/15236803.2019.1616657","volume":"25","author":"JL Hall","year":"2019","unstructured":"Hall JL, Hatcher W, McDonald BD, Shields P, Sowa JE (2019) The art of peer reviewing: toward an effective developmental process. J Public Aff Educ 25(3):296\u2013313. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/15236803.2019.1616657","journal-title":"J Public Aff Educ"},{"issue":"8","key":"2435_CR120","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"621","DOI":"10.2307\/1311927","volume":"42","author":"NM Waser","year":"1992","unstructured":"Waser NM, Price MV, Grosberg RK (1992) Writing an effective manuscript review. Bioscience 42(8):621\u2013623. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/1311927","journal-title":"Bioscience"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR121","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"281","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1525-1497.2006.00354.x","volume":"21","author":"C Estrada","year":"2006","unstructured":"Estrada C, Kalet A, Smith W, Chin MH (2006) How to be an outstanding reviewer for the journal of general internal medicine \u2026 and other journals. J Gen Intern Med 21(3):281\u2013284. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1525-1497.2006.00354.x","journal-title":"J Gen Intern Med"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR122","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"29","DOI":"10.1186\/s12916-016-0578-6","volume":"14","author":"PF Stahel","year":"2016","unstructured":"Stahel PF, Moore EE (2016) How to review a surgical paper: a guide for junior referees. BMC Med 14(1):29. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12916-016-0578-6","journal-title":"BMC Med"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR123","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"55","DOI":"10.1097\/IJ9.0000000000000055","volume":"3","author":"AJ Fowler","year":"2018","unstructured":"Fowler AJ, Koshy K, Gundogan B, Agha RA (2018) Peer review in scholarly publishing part B: how to do it? Int J Surg Oncol 3(2):55. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/IJ9.0000000000000055","journal-title":"Int J Surg Oncol"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR124","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"513","DOI":"10.7863\/jum.2010.29.4.513","volume":"29","author":"AM Vintzileos","year":"2010","unstructured":"Vintzileos AM, Ananth CV (2010) The art of peer-reviewing an original research paper. J Ultrasound Med 29(4):513\u2013518. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7863\/jum.2010.29.4.513","journal-title":"J Ultrasound Med"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR125","first-page":"17","volume":"141","author":"BP Squires","year":"1989","unstructured":"Squires BP (1989) Biomedical manuscripts: what editors want from authors and peer reviewers. C. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 141(1):17\u201319","journal-title":"C. Can. Med. Assoc. J."},{"issue":"5\u20136","key":"2435_CR126","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"293","DOI":"10.1007\/s11199-010-9753-y","volume":"62","author":"IH Frieze","year":"2010","unstructured":"Frieze IH (2010) Doing an excellent review of a sex roles paper. Sex Roles 62(5\u20136):293\u2013293. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11199-010-9753-y","journal-title":"Sex Roles"},{"issue":"6","key":"2435_CR127","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2249","DOI":"10.1007\/S11676-021-01389-7","volume":"32","author":"E Agathokleous","year":"2021","unstructured":"Agathokleous E (2021) Engaging in scientific peer review: tips for young reviewers. J For Res 32(6):2249\u20132254. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/S11676-021-01389-7","journal-title":"J For Res"},{"key":"2435_CR128","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"65","DOI":"10.1016\/J.INDMARMAN.2021.04.004","volume":"95","author":"WM Lim","year":"2021","unstructured":"Lim WM (2021) Pro-active peer review for premier journals. Ind Mark Manag 95:65\u201369. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/J.INDMARMAN.2021.04.004","journal-title":"Ind Mark Manag"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR129","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"201","DOI":"10.1067\/mpr.2003.54","volume":"89","author":"SC Bayne","year":"2003","unstructured":"Bayne SC, McGivney GP, Mazer SC (2003) Scientific composition and review of manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals. J Prosthet Dent 89(2):201\u2013218. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1067\/mpr.2003.54","journal-title":"J Prosthet Dent"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR130","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"623","DOI":"10.1016\/0735-1097(93)90075-C","volume":"22","author":"WW Parmley","year":"1993","unstructured":"Parmley WW (1993) Guidelines for reviewers. J Am Coll Cardiol 22(2):623. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/0735-1097(93)90075-C","journal-title":"J Am Coll Cardiol"},{"issue":"3694","key":"2435_CR131","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"319","DOI":"10.1126\/science.150.3694.319","volume":"150","author":"BK Forscher","year":"1965","unstructured":"Forscher BK (1965) Rules for referees: the duties of the editorial referee are examined, to establish efficient and uniform practices. Science 150(3694):319\u2013321. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1126\/science.150.3694.319","journal-title":"Science"},{"issue":"4","key":"2435_CR132","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1930","DOI":"10.1002\/nop2.944","volume":"9","author":"D Bressington","year":"2022","unstructured":"Bressington D, Thompson DR, Jones M, Gray R (2022) Conducting a sensitive, constructive and ethical peer review. Nurs Open 9(4):1930\u20131932. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/nop2.944","journal-title":"Nurs Open"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR133","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"375","DOI":"10.5465\/AMR.2009.40631320","volume":"34","author":"D Lepak","year":"2009","unstructured":"Lepak D (2009) Editor\u2019s comments: what is good reviewing? Acad Manag Rev 34(3):375\u2013381. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5465\/AMR.2009.40631320","journal-title":"Acad Manag Rev"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR134","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"123","DOI":"10.1207\/S15328015TL110301","volume":"11","author":"WC McGaghie","year":"1999","unstructured":"McGaghie WC (1999) Reflections on judging manuscripts for journal publication. Teach Learn Med 11(3):123\u2013124. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1207\/S15328015TL110301","journal-title":"Teach Learn Med"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR135","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"123","DOI":"10.1177\/0040059917743480","volume":"50","author":"MP Weiss","year":"2017","unstructured":"Weiss MP (2017) How to review for teaching exceptional children. Teach Except Child 50(3):123\u2013129. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0040059917743480","journal-title":"Teach Except Child"},{"issue":"9","key":"2435_CR136","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2622","DOI":"10.1007\/s11999-012-2447-8","volume":"470","author":"RA Brand","year":"2012","unstructured":"Brand RA (2012) Reviewing for clinical orthopaedics and related research. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(9):2622\u20132625. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11999-012-2447-8","journal-title":"Clin Orthop Relat Res"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR137","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3","DOI":"10.5114\/reum.2021.102709","volume":"59","author":"O Zimba","year":"2021","unstructured":"Zimba O, Gasparyan A (2021) Peer review guidance: a\u00a0primer for researchers. Rheumatology 59(1):3\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5114\/reum.2021.102709","journal-title":"Rheumatology"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR138","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"98","DOI":"10.1016\/S1552-8855(06)70209-4","volume":"11","author":"D Richardson","year":"2006","unstructured":"Richardson D, Vesely T, Costa N, Dean S, Moureau N, Wise M (2006) JAVA revises peer-reviewer guidelines. J Assoc Vasc Access 11(2):98\u2013100. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/S1552-8855(06)70209-4","journal-title":"J Assoc Vasc Access"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR139","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"177","DOI":"10.5999\/aps.2017.44.3.177","volume":"44","author":"KJ Chung","year":"2017","unstructured":"Chung KJ (2017) Peer review processes and desirable attitudes for peer reviewers. Arch Plast Surg 44(3):177. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5999\/aps.2017.44.3.177","journal-title":"Arch Plast Surg"},{"issue":"11","key":"2435_CR140","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"4631","DOI":"10.1007\/S00167-023-07595-6\/METRICS","volume":"31","author":"JD Hughes","year":"2023","unstructured":"Hughes JD, Cristiani R, Hirschmann MT, Musahl V, Eriksson K, Karlsson J (2023) Tips and tricks for how to become a good reviewer. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 31(11):4631\u20134636. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/S00167-023-07595-6\/METRICS","journal-title":"Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR141","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1112","DOI":"10.70252\/OWSL3396","volume":"11","author":"WJ Stone","year":"2018","unstructured":"Stone WJ, Navalta JW, Lyons TS, Schafer MA (2018) From the editors: a guide for peer review in the field of exercise science. Int J Exerc Sci 11(1):1112\u20131119","journal-title":"Int J Exerc Sci"},{"issue":"6","key":"2435_CR142","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"653","DOI":"10.1188\/04.CJON.653","volume":"8","author":"JP Griffin-Sobel","year":"2004","unstructured":"Griffin-Sobel JP (2004) Tips for reviewing manuscripts. Clin J Oncol Nurs 8(6):653. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1188\/04.CJON.653","journal-title":"Clin J Oncol Nurs"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR143","first-page":"107","volume":"9","author":"PP Koop","year":"1999","unstructured":"Koop PP (1999) Reviewing a manuscript for publication: how do I do this? Can Oncol Nurs J 9(3):107\u2013109","journal-title":"Can Oncol Nurs J"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR144","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"201","DOI":"10.1016\/j.det.2008.11.005","volume":"27","author":"CA Nelson","year":"2009","unstructured":"Nelson CA, Freeman SR, Dellavalle RP (2009) Reviewing dermatology manuscripts and publications. Dermatol Clin 27(2):201\u2013204. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.det.2008.11.005","journal-title":"Dermatol Clin"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR145","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1186\/s13643-016-0343-0","volume":"5","author":"SJ Gentles","year":"2016","unstructured":"Gentles SJ, Charles C, Nicholas DB, Ploeg J, McKibbon KA (2016) Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research. Syst Rev 5(1):1\u201311. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13643-016-0343-0","journal-title":"Syst Rev"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR146","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"227","DOI":"10.1177\/1534734620924349","volume":"19","author":"MK Lazarides","year":"2020","unstructured":"Lazarides MK, Georgiadis GS, Papanas N (2020) Do\u2019s and Don\u2019ts for a good reviewer of scientific papers: a beginner\u2019s brief decalogue. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 19(3):227\u2013229. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1534734620924349","journal-title":"Int J Low Extrem Wounds"},{"issue":"5","key":"2435_CR147","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e0251440","DOI":"10.1371\/JOURNAL.PONE.0251440","volume":"16","author":"E Song","year":"2021","unstructured":"Song E et al (2021) A scoping review on biomedical journal peer review guides for reviewers. PLoS ONE 16(5):e0251440. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/JOURNAL.PONE.0251440","journal-title":"PLoS ONE"},{"key":"2435_CR148","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2019-035604","author":"C Superchi","year":"2020","unstructured":"Superchi C et al (2020) Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research. BMJ Open. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmjopen-2019-035604","journal-title":"BMJ Open"},{"key":"2435_CR149","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"171","DOI":"10.1613\/JAIR.1.12862","volume":"75","author":"W Yuan","year":"2022","unstructured":"Yuan W, Liu P, Neubig G (2022) Can we automate scientific reviewing? J Artif Intell Res 75:171\u2013212. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1613\/JAIR.1.12862","journal-title":"J Artif Intell Res"},{"issue":"6","key":"2435_CR150","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"76","DOI":"10.1145\/3528086","volume":"65","author":"NB Shah","year":"2022","unstructured":"Shah NB (2022) Challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review. Commun ACM 65(6):76\u201387. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/3528086","journal-title":"Commun ACM"},{"key":"2435_CR151","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"903","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-009-0141-8","volume":"84","author":"L De Mesnard","year":"2010","unstructured":"De Mesnard L (2010) \u201cOn Hochberg et al.\u2019s\u201d the tragedy of the reviewer commons. Scientometrics 84:903\u2013917. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11192-009-0141-8","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"issue":"3","key":"2435_CR152","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"93","DOI":"10.1078\/0171-9335-00367","volume":"83","author":"K Jurkat-Rott","year":"2004","unstructured":"Jurkat-Rott K, Lehmann-Horn F (2004) Reviewing in science requires quality criteria and professional reviewers. Eur J Cell Biol 83(3):93\u201395. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1078\/0171-9335-00367","journal-title":"Eur J Cell Biol"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR153","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"76","DOI":"10.17705\/1jais.00865","volume":"25","author":"A Kankanhalli","year":"2024","unstructured":"Kankanhalli A (2024) Peer review in the age of generative AI. J Assoc Inf Syst 25(1):76\u201384. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.17705\/1jais.00865","journal-title":"J Assoc Inf Syst"},{"issue":"25","key":"2435_CR154","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1057\/s41599-020-00703-8","volume":"8","author":"A Checco","year":"2021","unstructured":"Checco A, Bracciale L, Loreti P, Pinfield S, Bianchi G (2021) AI-assisted peer review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8(25):1\u201311. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1057\/s41599-020-00703-8","journal-title":"Humanit Soc Sci Commun"},{"key":"2435_CR155","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.13140\/RG.2.2.20221.58088","author":"H Hadan","year":"2024","unstructured":"Hadan H, Wang D, Mogavi RH, Tu J, Zhang-Kennedy L, Nacke LE (2024) The great AI witch hunt: reviewers perception and (mis)conception of generative AI in research writing. Comput Hum Behav Artif Humans. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.13140\/RG.2.2.20221.58088","journal-title":"Comput Hum Behav Artif Humans"},{"key":"2435_CR156","unstructured":"Burley R, Moylan E (2017) What might peer review look like in 2030? London, UK"},{"issue":"2","key":"2435_CR157","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"125","DOI":"10.1038\/s42256-020-00287-7","volume":"3","author":"R van de Schoot","year":"2021","unstructured":"van de Schoot R et al (2021) An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews. Nat Mach Intell 3(2):125\u2013133. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s42256-020-00287-7","journal-title":"Nat Mach Intell"},{"key":"2435_CR158","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2023-072254","author":"SHB Van Dijk","year":"2023","unstructured":"Van Dijk SHB, Brusse-Keizer MGJ, Bucs\u00e1n CC, Van Der Palen J, Doggen CJM, Lenferink A (2023) Artificial intelligence in systematic reviews: promising when appropriately used. Br Med J Publ Group. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmjopen-2023-072254","journal-title":"Br Med J Publ Group"},{"key":"2435_CR159","unstructured":"Agrawal A, Suzgun M, Mackey L, Kalai AT (2024) Do language models know when they\u2019re hallucinating references? In: EACL 2024\u201418th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Findings of EACL 2024, pp. 912\u2013928. Accessed: Oct. 31, 2024. [Online]. Available: https:\/\/aclanthology.org\/2024.findings-eacl.62"},{"key":"2435_CR160","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"39","DOI":"10.1007\/s41060-022-00359-4","volume":"17","author":"S Raza","year":"2024","unstructured":"Raza S, Reji DJ, Ding C (2024) Dbias: detecting biases and ensuring fairness in news articles. Int J Data Sci Anal 17:39\u201359. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s41060-022-00359-4","journal-title":"Int J Data Sci Anal"},{"key":"2435_CR161","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Lin J et al (2022) MOPRD: a multidisciplinary open peer review dataset. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/ARXIV.2212.04972","DOI":"10.48550\/ARXIV.2212.04972"},{"key":"2435_CR162","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"100962","DOI":"10.1016\/j.iheduc.2024.100962","volume":"63","author":"K Guo","year":"2024","unstructured":"Guo K, Pan M, Li Y, Lai C (2024) Effects of an AI-supported approach to peer feedback on university EFL students\u2019 feedback quality and writing ability. Internet High Educ 63:100962. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.iheduc.2024.100962","journal-title":"Internet High Educ"},{"key":"2435_CR163","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1056\/aioa2400196","author":"W Liang","year":"2024","unstructured":"Liang W et al (2024) Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis. NEJM AI. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1056\/aioa2400196","journal-title":"NEJM AI"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR164","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"10","DOI":"10.1016\/j.mayocp.2023.11.013","volume":"99","author":"KA Nath","year":"2024","unstructured":"Nath KA, Conway M, Fonseca R (2024) AI in peer review: publishing\u2019s panacea or a pandora\u2019s box of problems? Mayo Clin Proc 99(1):10\u201312. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.mayocp.2023.11.013","journal-title":"Mayo Clin Proc"},{"issue":"9","key":"2435_CR165","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"754","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1442-2042.2010.02622.x","volume":"17","author":"NB Christensen","year":"2010","unstructured":"Christensen NB, Yokomizo A (2010) How to peer review. Int J Urol 17(9):754. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1442-2042.2010.02622.x","journal-title":"Int J Urol"},{"issue":"1","key":"2435_CR166","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1057\/s41267-016-0049-5","volume":"48","author":"A Verbeke","year":"2017","unstructured":"Verbeke A, Von Glinow MA, Luo Y (2017) Becoming a great reviewer: four actionable guidelines. J Int Bus Stud 48(1):1\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1057\/s41267-016-0049-5","journal-title":"J Int Bus Stud"},{"issue":"5","key":"2435_CR167","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"604","DOI":"10.1177\/0145721711421866","volume":"37","author":"JA Fain","year":"2011","unstructured":"Fain JA (2011) Guidelines informing the peer review process. Diabetes Educ 37(5):604. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0145721711421866","journal-title":"Diabetes Educ"}],"container-title":["Knowledge and Information Systems"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s10115-025-02435-0.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s10115-025-02435-0\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s10115-025-02435-0.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,9,6]],"date-time":"2025-09-06T14:44:34Z","timestamp":1757169874000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s10115-025-02435-0"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,16]]},"references-count":167,"journal-issue":{"issue":"8","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2025,8]]}},"alternative-id":["2435"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10115-025-02435-0","relation":{},"ISSN":["0219-1377","0219-3116"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0219-1377","type":"print"},{"value":"0219-3116","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,16]]},"assertion":[{"value":"15 November 2024","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"7 March 2025","order":2,"name":"revised","label":"Revised","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"27 March 2025","order":3,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"16 May 2025","order":4,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Conflict of interest"}}]}}