Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

The Golden Rule of Reviewing

Mark A. McPeek, Donald L. DeAngelis, Ruth G. Shaw, Allen J. Moore, Mark D. Rausher, Donald R. Strong, Aaron M. Ellison, Louise Barrett, Loren Rieseberg, Michael D. Breed, Jack Sullivan, Craig W. Osenberg, Marcel Holyoak and Mark A. Elgar
The American Naturalist
Vol. 173, No. 5 (May 2009), pp. E155-E158
DOI: 10.1086/598847
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/598847
Page Count: 4
  • Download PDF
  • Cite this Item
The Golden Rule of Reviewing
We're having trouble loading this content. Download PDF instead.

Page Thumbnails

Abstract

Abstract: A major bottleneck in the time required to publish a scientific or scholarly paper is the speed with which reviews by peers are returned to journals. Peer review is a reciprocal altruistic system in which each individual may perform every task—editors, reviewers, and authors—at different times. Journals have no way to coerce reviewers to return their critiques faster. To greatly shorten the time to publication, all actors in this altruistic network should abide by the Golden Rule of Reviewing: review for others as you would have others review for you. Say yes to reviewing whenever your duties and schedule allow; provide a thorough, fair, and constructive critique of the work; and do it at your first opportunity regardless of the deadline.