Content area
Full Text
Peer review has been referred to as the 'invisible hand' that maintains the quality of journal literature (Harnad, 2000). The Internet has improved access to a plethora of material, but places even more emphasis on the importance of the quality checks offered by the peer review process.
The role of the reviewer is to provide expert insight into whether a paper is potentially publishable and what, if any, modifications might be needed. While the review guides the editor in making decisions about whether to publish a paper, 'the best reviewers concentrate on offering good advice to authors rather than giving summary judgements to editors' (Goldbeck-Wood, 1998). In my early professional life - in education - it was impressed on me that there was little point in saying that a piece of work was poor. It was much more constructive to offer suggestions for improvement - a principle that fits comfortably into the context of peer review. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has developed a set of guidelines on good publication practice, which should be of interest to anyone involved in writing, reviewing, editing or reading journal articles. It suggests that 'reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased and justifiable reports' (Committee on Publication Ethics, 1999).
Black et al. (1998) attempted to identify the characteristics of a good reviewer and a good review by asking two editors and the...