The quality of editorial reviews is critical to the success of any scholarly journal, and the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP) is no exception. Reviewers generously volunteer their time and intellectual energy to provide critiques of manuscripts that serve the critical function of enhancing the quality of science that is published in JPP (Drotar, 2008a). Under tight timelines and in the context of multiple responsibilities, reviewers are asked to assume the difficult task of reviewing manuscripts that are often complex and detailed. Based on my experience over the past 2 years as editor of JPP, previous experience as managing editor, and feedback from JPP’s associate editors, here are some suggestions to enhance the utility and quality of your reviews. Reviewers should also consult the JPP website (www.jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org) for specific guidelines concerning reviews as well as other relevant published sources (Drotar, 2000; Goldbeck-Wood, 1998; Hyman, 1995).
[1]
D. W. Fiske,et al.
But the Reviewers Are Making Different Criticisms of My Paper! Diversity and Uniqueness in Reviewer Comments.
,
1990
.
[2]
Confessions of an editor, including mistakes I have made
,
1995
.
[3]
R. Hyman.
How to critique a published article.
,
1995
.
[4]
S. Goldbeck-Wood,et al.
What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts?
,
1998,
BMJ.
[5]
Dennis Drotar.
Reviewing and Editing Manuscripts for Scientific Journals
,
2000
.
[6]
D. Drotar.
Editorial: thoughts on establishing research significance and preserving scientific integrity.
,
2008,
Journal of pediatric psychology.
[7]
Editorial: Acknowledging the Extraordinary Service and Contributions of the Editorial Board for the Journal
,
2008
.