Even for particularly bad papers, there might be one sentence in the introduction, discussion, or future work section that makes an interesting point or highlights a possibility for interesting contributions. Many reviewers are not polite enough. Overall, I try to make comments that would make the paper stronger.
Do all the results presented match the methods described. Are the experiments run correctly. Finally comes a list of really minor stuff, which I try to keep to a minimum. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interests, please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office.
Writing a good review requires expertise in the field, an intimate knowledge of research methods, a critical mind, the ability to give fair and constructive feedback, and sensitivity to the feelings of authors on the receiving end.
I want statements of fact, not opinion or speculation, backed up by data. Most of the time is spent closely reading the paper and taking notes. I try to link any criticism I have either to a page number or a quotation from the manuscript to ensure that my argument is understood.
When reading a paper for your own enrichment, your goal is to gather information as quickly as possible. Writing Your Review Start with a summary of the paper and its contributions.
Would there have been a better way to test these hypotheses or to analyze these results.
Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected. If there is a major flaw or concern, I try to be honest and back it up with evidence. If you have agreed to review a paper but will no longer be able to finish the work before the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible.
As a range of institutions and organizations around the world celebrate the essential role of peer review in upholding the quality of published research this week, Science Careers shares collected insights and advice about how to review papers from researchers across the spectrum.
Are the results novel. Content Quality and Originality, Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication. Using a copy of the manuscript that I first marked up with any questions that I had, I write a brief summary of what the paper is about and what I feel about its solidity.
Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research. Then I have bullet points for major comments and for minor comments. It is always easy to find reasons to reject a paper.
To me, it is biased to reach a verdict on a paper based on how groundbreaking or novel the results are, for example. If the research has been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.
The detailed reading and the sense-making process, in particular, takes a long time. This often requires doing some background reading, sometimes including some of the cited literature, about the theory presented in the manuscript. I believe it improves the transparency of the review process, and it also helps me police the quality of my own assessments by making me personally accountable.
I even selectively check individual numbers to see whether they are statistically plausible. There are a few aspects that I make sure to address, though I cover a lot more ground as well.
I've heard from some reviewers that they're more likely to accept an invitation to review from a more prestigious journal and don't feel as bad about rejecting invitations from more specialized journals. I always write my reviews as though I am talking to the scientists in person.
Second, I pay attention to the results and whether they have been compared with other similar published studies. Does the paper raise any ethical concerns. I never use value judgments or value-laden adjectives. Whether you end up reviewing a lot of papers as a Ph.
Are there any potential conflicts of interests. I also carefully look at the explanation of the results and whether the conclusions the authors draw are justified and connected with the broader argument made in the paper.
Once I have the notes, writing the review itself generally takes less than an hour. I will not reiterate or summarize those previous articles here, but they are all definitely worth a read. Is there an angle the authors have overlooked. Conclusions that are overstated or out of sync with the findings will adversely impact my review and recommendations.
Reviewing is a great learning experience and an exciting thing to do. Peer reviewers should declare any conflicts of interest seeking advice from the publisher if they are unsureand possess sufficient knowledge in the field to perform a thorough assessment of the manuscript.
Guidelines for writing a Review Article A) Good to know about review articles B) Elements of a review article the review, defines the focus, the research question and explains the text structure.
Elements Elements of a three paragraph introduction (after Anonymous ). Help authors improve their papers by providing your professional expertise. Gain a sense of prestige in being consulted as an expert! Play an important role in maintaining a good, rigorous peer-review process.
Expand your awareness. Nov 16, · How to Write an Article Review. In this Article: Article Summary Preparing to Write Your Review Writing the Article Review Sample Article Reviews Community Q&A. An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article.
Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field%(). Help authors improve their papers by providing your professional expertise.
Gain a sense of prestige in being consulted as an expert! Play an important role in maintaining a good, rigorous peer-review process. Expand your awareness of the current research emerging within your field.
Unless the journal uses a structured review format, I usually begin my review with a general statement of my understanding of the paper and what it claims, followed by a paragraph offering an. Guidelines for peer reviewing of research papers and manuscripts for submission.
Dove Press specializes in publishing medical journals. Peer Review Guidelines. Does the paper fit the aims and scope of the journal? (Each journal has an "Aims and Scope" link on the upper right of its home page).Guidelines for reviewing research papers