Criticize the paper, not the authors. Guidelines for reviewing research papers Share A good peer review requires disciplinary expertise, a keen and critical eye, and a diplomatic and constructive approach.
If there are things I struggle with, I will suggest that the authors revise parts of their paper to make it more solid or broadly accessible. This intellectual nugget might be the application or invention of a particular technique, a proof of correctness where one previously did not existor an attempt to put the solution into a broader intellectual context.
In addition to considering their overall quality, sometimes figures raise questions about the methods used to collect or analyze the data, or they fail to support a finding reported in the paper and warrant further clarification.
Journal editors and program committee chairs often seek the help of external reviewers if they need a particular subject-matter expert to review a paper. I often refer back to my annotated version of the online paper.
As a result, peer reviewers are asked to submit their comments within 10 business days. You can find further information on competing interests here. The parts of the Discussion I focus on most are context and whether the authors make claims that overreach the data.
Reading this should answer most of the queries you have and guide you in completing a peer review report in the most thorough and prompt way to ensure the paper is properly reviewed and published quickly. After all, we are all in it together. Try to address the type of paper it is is it a survey paper, for example?
Reading past proceedings of the particular journal or conference can also help you determine the appropriate standard to set for acceptance.
Second, I ponder how well the work that was conducted actually addresses the central question posed in the paper. A single paper very rarely closes the book on a single problem, but it may take an important step towards solving the problem. The Peer Reviewer After receiving a request to peer review it is essential that peer reviewers respond in a timely fashion, particularly if they cannot do the review, to avoid unnecessarily delaying the process.
Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Receiving reviews for rejected papers is a part of the research process, but it is never fun for the authors particularly new Ph. I also pay attention to the schemes and figures; if they are well designed and organized, then in most cases the entire paper has also been carefully thought out.
Finally, I evaluate whether the methodology used is appropriate. Do the title and abstract cover the main aspects of the work?
Are the methods robust and well controlled? The exact process used for peer review varies between publishers and from journal to journal, but generally the method will fall into one of three categories: My tone is very formal, scientific, and in third person.
So if you have not fully understood something in the paper, do not hesitate to ask for clarification. Every paper is imperfect. But I only mention flaws if they matter, and I will make sure the review is constructive.
I make a decision after drafting my review. Writing the Report Peer reviewers should assess the major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as well as look at the statistical power of the study if relevant. Are they based on the correct set of assumptions?
So I can only rate what priority I believe the paper should receive for publication today. When you deliver criticism, your comments should be honest but always respectful and accompanied with suggestions to improve the manuscript.
Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? And secondly, how can it be improved?
Then I look at how convincing the results are and how careful the description is. If I feel there is some good material in the paper but it needs a lot of work, I will write a pretty long and specific review pointing out what the authors need to do.
The only other factor I pay attention to is the scientific integrity of the journal. You should be aiming to figure out whether the paper has important contributions that the audience will benefit from knowing about, and whether the paper supports those contributions and conclusions to the level of standard that is commensurate with the standard of the audience and the venue.
In the first part of their report, peer reviewers should write a short summary describing their assessment of the manuscript.Format for a review paper Title page: Title-- reflecting topic of review Your Name Date Abstract: An abstract should be of approximately killarney10mile.come a brief summary of the review question being addressed or rationale for the review, the major.
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. Step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript.
When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review.
Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest. 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 ). 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).Download