Peer Review Quick Guide
HomeAboutCommon MistakesDilemmasResourcesFeedbackNIUORIExit
Common Mistakes

This section provides opportunities to explore common mistakes made by novice peer reviewers. These mistakes range from major (ex. subject recruitment, measurement instruments, data analysis, etc.) to minor (ex. abstract not in the format required by journal, references, tables/figures, etc.). It is acknowledged that there can often be a conflict between the reviewers’ and authors’ perspectives. If authors perceive reviewers to be wrong or misguided, the authors should document to the editor or program officer why their approach is correct for the situation and why the reviewer’s suggestion may not work.

Each mistake will be identified by a specific title. Users should select a mistake from the list by clicking on the item. Each common mistake will begin with a brief introductory scenario followed by a sample paper excerpt, citation, etc. The user will then be asked to identify the mistake. Feedback regarding the response will then be provided.

Select a topic below or proceed to Mistake 1
- Citation of an Online Source - Disclosure of Conflict of Interest (COI)  
- Unclear Subject Recruitment - Review Quality  
- Sample Size - Constructive Criticism  
- Confidentiality - Objectivity  
- Information about Group Comparison
- Reporting Statistical Significance  
- Responsiveness - Justification for Research  
- Impartiality - Distribution of a variable  
- Reviewer Competency Manuscript with    Substantial Statistical Content - Unclear Research Methods – Trimming    and Cooking Data  
- Appropriate Statistical Methodology to    Compare pre- and post-study Results - Using Power Analysis to Determine the    Appropriate Number of Subjects  
Developed 2006 by the Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center, Northern Illinois University.