- Medicine Information and Evidence for Policy > Information and Publications
- Medicine Access and Rational Use > Rational Use
(2005; 165 pages)
7.4.6 Tips for reviewing articles
Whatever the size of the review board, these are some recommendations for the review process:
• circulate anonymous drafts. This greatly facilitates criticism. Some bulletins also do not name the editor and some inform reviewers that their comments will be kept confidential;
• try to get people with different therapeutic opinions to review a draft. It is always useful to find out why people may disagree with your conclusions;
• use the review process to involve specialists or health professionals in the bulletin's development and to identify future editors or authors;
• reinforce links with readers by involving them as reviewers;
• provide guidelines to reviewers explaining what you expect of them and how to present their comments (e.g. you can ask them to back their comments on scientific evidence with specific references);
• monitor the performance of reviewers.
The more effective reviewers you involve, the more difficult management becomes if you want them to receive feedback in order to maintain motivation. Electronic reviewing (e-mail) is, for example, used by the Dutch bulletin Geneesmiddelenbulletin to help simplify this process. However, the same amount of time and competence are needed to produce a careful evaluation of reviewers’ comments whether they arrive in the post or electronically.