Academy of Reviewers
Publicly Available to the AJNR Community
This initiative provides publicly available resources to any member of the AJNR community who is interested in learning about the review process.
Goals:
- Increase familiarity with the AJNR submission process
- Increase familiarity with the AJNR review process
- Provide peer review training
Resources:
- Explanation of AJNR peer review process
- View PowerPoint presentation describing the peer review process
- View flow chart of the peer review process
- View video presentation of Editor-in-Chief Dr. Max Wintermark explaining the AJNR peer review process: Part 1 and Part 2
- Seasoned AJNR reviewers' insights and tips on how to perform a review
- Interview with Dr. Mauricio Castillo
- Listen to audio only
- View video presentation: Part 1 and Part 2
- Interview with Dr. Mauricio Castillo
- Example template for writing a review
- Examples of “good” and “bad” reviews
- Good example #1: Detailed review containing all necessary information
- Good example #2: Detailed review containing all necessary information
- Good example #3: Concise and clear review of the strengths and limitations of the study
- Good example #4: Detailed review containing all necessary information
- Bad example #1: Vague review without helpful guidance for the editor
- Bad example #2: Vague review without helpful guidance for the editor
- Bad example #3: Short review without helpful guidance for the editor
- Bad example #4: Short review without helpful guidance for the editor
- Bad example #5: Harsh review without helpful guidance for the editor
- Bad example #6: Harsh review without helpful guidance for the editor
- If you would like guidance or feedback on your review, please contact Dr. Max Wintermark and/or the appropriate team of subject editors. Your email should include a PDF of the manuscript, your initial review, and your specific questions.
Additional Resources:
- Resource #1: Example of a step-by-step guide to performing a review