NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ832071
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2009-Mar
Pages: 3
Abstractor: As Provided
Reference Count: 13
ISSN: ISSN-1043-4046
Reviewing Scientific Manuscripts: How Much Statistical Knowledge Should a Reviewer Really Know?
Morton, James P.
Advances in Physiology Education, v33 n1 p7-9 Mar 2009
In the sequel to their guidelines for reporting statistics in American Physiological Society journals, Curran-Everett and Benos highlighted that the initial guidelines of 2004 have had little effect on the statistical reporting practices of authors. In the present article, I suggest that the guidelines have also had little impact on both journal reviewers and editors. I present three cases of statistical reporting practices in which there appears to be considerable discrepancies between the author and reviewer and, moreover, inconsistencies between reviewers. I argue that for authors to comply with these guidelines, the initial challenge is to have a team of reviewers who are also willing to accept the unfamiliar. Indeed, the opinions of reviewers who are ill informed about relatively novel statistical methods and recommended reporting practices may have implications for the final editorial decision on the suitability of submitted manuscripts for publication.
American Physiological Society. 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814-3991. Tel: 301-634-7164; Fax: 301-634-7241; e-mail:; Web site:
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Opinion Papers; Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A