Subscribe to RSS
![](/products/assets/desktop/img/oa-logo.png)
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2017.01711
How to review a paper for Archives of Plastic Surgery, communicate as a reviewer, and handle disagreements with authors
![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/10.1055-s-00051611/201801/lookinside/thumbnails/10_5999_aps_2017_01711_1-1.jpg)
![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/10.1055-s-00051611/201801/thumbnails/10_5999_aps_2017_01711_1i1.jpg)
![Zoom Image](/products/assets/desktop/css/img/icon-figure-zoom.png)
“What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others. 己所不慾 勿施於人 Confucius, BC 551–479”.
Since Archives of Plastic Surgery (APS) is an open access journal, strict adherence to the peer review system is necessary to maintain the quality of the scientific papers it publishes. APS is an open access journal that allows users to search, read, download, and distribute papers freely, while the author pays for the publication and distribution of the paper. The actual budget for publication consists of payments made by the author, most commonly from the author’s research grant or employer, financial support from the Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, and a grant from the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies. Despite the many advantages of this model, a lack of quality control is possible, especially when only economic profit is considered in the business model or when papers are not properly peer-reviewed.
Publication History
Received: 27 November 2017
Accepted: 28 November 2017
Article published online:
03 April 2022
© 2018. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
REFERENCES
- 1 Drubin DG. Any jackass can trash a manuscript, but it takes good scholarship to create one (how MBoC promotes civil and constructive peer review). Mol Biol Cell 2011; 22: 525-7
- 2 Hoppin Jr FG. How i review an original scientific article. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166: 1019-23
- 3 Bornmann L, Daniel HD. The manuscript reviewing process: empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review. Libr Inf Sci Res. 2010
- 4 Provenzale JM, Stanley RJ. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185: 848-54
- 5 Wenzel V, Dunser WM, Lindner KH. A step by step guide to writing a scientific manuscript [Internet]. San Francisco: Scribd Inc; 2017 [cited 2017 Oct 10]. Available from: https://www.scribd.com/document/62777886/A-Step-by-Step-Guide-to-Writing-a-Scientific-Manuscript
- 6 Allen TW. Peer review guidance: how do you write a good review?. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2013; 113: 916-20
- 7 Roberts LW, Coverdale J, Edenharder K. et al. How to review a manuscript: a “down-to-earth” approach. Acad Psychiatry 2004; 28: 81-7
- 8 Lee SY. Tips on writing and reviewing articles as a non-english speaking medical doctor. Arch Plast Surg 2015; 42: 1-3