 The purpose of this module is to talk about how to review manuscripts for professional journals. Let's start with reviewing the purpose of manuscript reviewing. The manuscript reviewing process is really the quality assurance process for journals. It's through manuscript reviewing that journal editors are able to assure their readers that the articles are of top quality, the articles are relevant and the articles are very readable. The manuscript review process is really meant to help authors publish the best possible article that they can. Why should you participate in becoming a manuscript reviewer? Well, first of all, being a manuscript reviewer is a wonderful way to contribute to the discipline. You help authors make the best papers possible. You help provide works to the reader and so you're really contributing to your own discipline. Another excellent reason for becoming a manuscript reviewer is really to improve your own writing. I have found in my experience through reviewing manuscripts that once you critique enough papers, you look at the quality of writing, the organization of the paper, it really helps you in your own writing. So I would highly encourage you to consider becoming a manuscript reviewer both for the purpose of contributing to our discipline and also to help in your own writing. What are the criteria to become a manuscript reviewer? Some journal editors will require that you have published in their journal before they're considered you to be a manuscript reviewer. However, I'd say that's not the most common approach. Some editors would prefer that you've published, but it doesn't matter whether it was in their journal. It could be in any journal. Yet again, other editors are really concerned that you know the content, that you have content expertise. They don't necessarily require that you have published previously. They just want to be assured that you have content expertise in the topical area for that article. The number and the types of degrees that you hold is really not what's essential when an editor is considering you for the review process. We want you to have expertise, we want you to have experience, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to have a PhD or doctoral degree or master's degree. We want you to have the expertise and the willingness to take the time to review carefully the paper and to review and return the paper in a timely way. How do you become a manuscript reviewer? All journal editors are seeking reviewers, so I would encourage you to volunteer in a journal that matches your expertise. Contact the editor and volunteer. Then the editor will most likely send you a form that you complete electronically where you indicate your areas of expertise and the topics that you're willing to review. But believe me, any editor would really be happy to hear from you if you're willing to review a manuscript. Reviewing manuscripts is not a paid activity, so don't expect pay for your work. Instead, know that you're making significant contributions to the discipline. Once you're invited to be a manuscript reviewer, then how do you respond? Well, first of all, an editor is aiming to gain about two to three reviewers per paper. Often we have to send out many invitations in order to get back two or three reviewers who agree to review the paper. So you'll be contacted electronically with an invitation, and then you will go into an electronic system and acknowledge that invitation. Please don't ignore the invitation. If you're unable to do the review, go into the invitation and click the reply of no. Often that invitation may ask if you know instead of another reviewer that you could recommend. So you may want to recommend a colleague that you know has the expertise. If you agree to review a paper, you're expected to return it in a timely way. Often an editor will ask for you to return it in about a two to three week time. Please don't accept an invitation to review a paper if you're unable to meet that deadline. By holding up the paper and not doing the review in a timely way, you really slow down the whole review process. Once you accept an invitation, if for any reason you're now not able to complete the paper in a timely way, immediately contact the editor and either ask for an extension if that is possible, or let the editor know so the editor could find another reviewer. If as a reviewer you consistently develop a pattern of not returning your reviews on time, your name will be deleted from the database of reviewers that the editor has in their system. So again, I encourage you, if you accept a review, return it in a timely way. If you're unable to return it after you've accepted the invitation, let the editor know right away. Authors are very anxious to find out the outcome of their paper, and it's really in the review process where the greatest delays occur. Although we ask reviewers to return papers in about two to three weeks, sometimes reviewers delay and delay the process, and that really upsets an author when they're waiting to hear the results of their paper.