Skip to content. | Skip to navigation
Log in | find out more or join now.
By Barbara Gastel, 03 February 2012
By Ravi Murugesan, 01 February 2012
This is the announcement for the first set of small grants in 2012. Read More…
By Bernard Appiah, 31 January 2012
By Barbara Gastel, 29 January 2012
By Barbara Gastel, 27 January 2012
By Barbara Gastel | 11 July 2010
Greetings again. I hope you’re doing well. I’m glad to see that 2000 people now are registered for AuthorAID.
Last month at the AuthorAID research-writing workshop in Tanzania, people asked many excellent questions. One question was the following: How do journal editors identify suitable people to serve as peer reviewers?
After presenting my answer, I realized that other members of the AuthorAID community might have the same question. Therefore, here is my answer:
Do you know other ways that editors identify potential peer reviewers? If so, please submit a comment.
Wishing you a good week— Barbara
Posted by Julie Walker at 14 July 2010 03:30 PM
The Forum of African Medical Editors (FAME) has some very useful tools for selecting reviewers:
•FAME tool for selecting reviewers
•FAME guidelines on increasing the number of reviewers
•FAME suggestions for journal guidelines for reviewers
•FAME guidelines on getting reviewers’ reports on time
These can all be found at: http://apps.who.int/[…]/fame-guidelines
Posted by Matt Hodgkinson at 01 August 2010 05:35 PM
Often reviewers need to be invited in areas an editor is not intimately familiar with. Looking at the reference list and author suggestions is an obvious starter, though author suggestions tend to be kinder to the authors than those selected by editors. If you want rigorous review, pick your own reviewers. Using just these options will give you only a limited choice of potential reviewers. Many journals have lists of reviewers, but again this could limit your choice. Even if an editor knows an area, picking people off the top of their head can have downsides - the same people could be used repeatedly, risking biasing review, and the people chosen might be the "usual suspects" that every editor thinks of for that field - and who are thus overloaded with review requests!
I swear by using keyword searches in PubMed and Google Scholar (and Scopus and Web of Science, if you have them). Learning how to craft searches using brackets and inclusion/exclusion terms is essential, as is selecting the right keywords and alternative terms - MeSH terms in PubMed can be useful. Read the help files for the literature databases you use to hone your use of them.
Two tools I highly recommend are the Journal/Author Name Estimator (JANE) and PubReMiner. With JANE (http://www.biosemantics.org/jane/) you can paste in an abstract or full manuscript and it automatically returns suggestions of matching people and journals. eTBlast does much the same.
With PubReMiner (http://bioinfo.amc.uva.nl/human-genetics/pubreminer/) you get a summary of the results of a PubMed search - the most frequent authors, journals, keywords, etc. A tool called Anne O' Tate is similar, and Scopus returns similar summary statistics if you have access to it.
How to select peer reviewers
Posted by Arachchige J J G at 12 July 2010 05:36 AM
Dear Babara
Thank you for information. i used your tutorials and slides for my teaching and workshops.
As an Editor I have experienced that selected reviewers should be known people to the Editor. We can communicate with known people easily and reviewing process requires lot of communications. and the Edito should think of the security of the article (untill it is published)
Thank you