Did you review the manuscript as a peer reviewer prior to its submission to the journal? Foremost in your description should be the "quantitative" aspects of your study - the masses, volumes, incubation times, concentrations, etc.
They are likely to be similar to the following options: Further reading Pannell, D. If there are any aspects of the manuscript that I am not familiar with, I try to read up on those topics or consult other colleagues. If there are aspects that you are unable to evaluate e. I consider four factors: No, but you should attempt to, especially if you have published in the journal.
Just pretend that it's your own research and figure out what experiments you would do and how you would interpret the data.
Always identify treatments by the variable or treatment name, NOT by an ambiguous, generic name or number e. I want statements of fact, not opinion or speculation, backed up by data. The transition into interpretive language can be a slippery slope. Then I have bullet points for major comments and for minor comments.
If there are serious mistakes or missing parts, then I do not recommend publication. Strive for an impersonal, non-critical, and informative account. Basically, I am looking to see if the research question is well motivated; if the data are sound; if the analyses are technically correct; and, most importantly, if the findings support the claims made in the paper.
As discussed, if there are no numbers, there are no goals. So readers can form an idea about the existing knowledge on a topic without having to read all the published works in the field. For example, the topic may be of minor importance; the basic conceptual development may be extremely weak or incorrect; or the empirical work may have uncorrectable defects.
It is likely that in the long run the amount of reviewing you are asked to do will be roughly proportional to the number of articles you submit to journals.
Read each paragraph carefully.
This is obviously better avoided if possible, but sometimes the reality is that it is impossible. If the paper has horrendous difficulties or a confused concept, I will specify that but will not do a lot of work to try to suggest fixes for every flaw.
Suggest using active voice. For a paper that is terrible, you would only note major issues, or even major groups of issues. That makes things a lot harder for editors of the less prestigious journals, and that's why I am more inclined to take on reviews from them.
It is generally inappropriate to raise them in later review rounds if they already existed in the first draft submitted. I even selectively check individual numbers to see whether they are statistically plausible.
If you make a practice of signing reviews, then over the years, many of your colleagues will have received reviews with your name on them. As such, this guide aims to explain 1 why you should care about writing a powerful cover letter, 2 what you should include in it, and 3 how you should structure it.
Read each paragraph carefully. Are you writing for research assessment? Personally, I don't think this is worth doing. I look for specific indicators of research quality, asking myself questions such as: Please ensure that comments are detailed and clear and that they are constructive in nature, even if you are recommending that the paper be rejected.
And if you identify a paper that you think has a substantial error that is not easily fixed, then the authors of this paper will find it hard to not hold a grudge.
What do you consider when deciding whether to accept an invitation to review a paper? Top of Page Describe your experimental design clearly. The first sentence usually gives the rationale for the research, and the last asserts a 'contribution to knowledge'. Reject unconditionally, because the likelihood of successful revision is remote.
You might address issues such as the significance of the contribution, quality and thoroughness of the analysis, clarity of presentation, practical importance, originality, depth and appropriateness for the Journal.
What degree of quality control do reviewers provide? You should review articles because it is part of the culture of research that we all contribute to this essential service.This is my first attempt at writing a scientific paper and I am thinking of writing a review article.
I want to know what is the exact difference between a research paper and a review paper. I realized today that I would be sitting down to compose my 51st weekly column for The Indiana Policy Review, just one masterpiece away from that happy anniversary when I will have completed a.
PhD2Published has several informative posts about writing journal articles, and more recently has featured a post outlining a potentially revolutionary collaborative peer review. fmgm2018.com: Bullet Journal/Notebook (2 Pack) - Hardcover Dot Grid Notebook, Premium Thick Paper Faux Leather Writing Notebook (5 x ): Office Products.
fmgm2018.com: LEATHER JOURNAL Writing Notebook - Antique Handmade Leather Bound Daily Notepad For Men & Women Unlined Paper 7 x 5 Inches, Best Gift for Art Sketchbook, Travel Diary & Notebooks to Write in: Office Products.
Writing a Research Paper. This page lists some of the stages involved in writing a library-based research paper. Although this list suggests that there is a simple, linear process to writing such a paper, the actual process of writing a research paper is often a messy and recursive one, so please use this outline as a flexible guide.Download