View article

Peer review is an activity central to increasing the quality of communication in the health sciences, but almost no formal or standardised training for peer reviewers exists. In this chapter we provide a series of practical tips on how to peer review a manuscript and write the report based on the evidence from published research that is summarised elsewhere in this book, and on our combined experience of reviewing for approximately 30 journals. Overall, we believe that the best way to increase the quality of peer reviewing would be to conduct such reviews based on up to date evidence–an approach we call evidence-based peer review.

In theory, the peer review process exists to provide feedback to authors and editors of journals, and to ensure that readers find in journals information that will help them make better decisions. In practice, however, peer review is a poorly understood process that is becoming the focus of intense scrutiny and controversy. The controversy around peer review has intensified recently with the speed with which the internet is developing and the challenges that this new powerful medium is creating for the traditional paper-based peer review system. 1, 2 The peer reviewer, the person who assesses the merits of a manuscript submitted for publication in a journal, is at the heart of the controversy.