Look for areas that have not yet been thoroughly reviewed or areas for which you think you have a fresh take on old data. I worked my way backward to a set of about 10 key papers.
Before I became an editor, I used to be fairly eclectic in the journals I reviewed for, but now I tend to be more discerning, since my editing duties take up much of my reviewing time.
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.
At this first stage, I try to be as open-minded as I can.
Many reviewers are not polite enough. Could this methodology have answered their question. Is the statistical analysis sound and justified. 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.
Finally, I evaluate whether the methodology used is appropriate. Mostly, it occurs when the brand new readers discontinue utilizing the eBooks as they are not able to use all of them with the proper and effectual fashion of reading these books. In my field, authors are under pressure to broadly sell their work, and it's my job as a reviewer to address the validity of such claims.
After I have finished reading the manuscript, I let it sink in for a day or so and then I try to decide which aspects really matter. Make an outline, keep lists of topics that are and are not within your scope, and remind yourself to stop any time your reading wanders outside your scope.
I tried to reassure myself by remembering that I had been rather good at writing term papers in college; but this was a larger task and one with the potential for having an impact on someone, somewhere, sometime who wanted to learn about caspase substrates.
Another common mistake is writing an unfocused review that is lost in the details.
Use the same font and spacing: Then I read the Methods section very carefully. I like to use two sittings, even when I am pretty sure of my conclusions. Next, I combined those summaries into a single table. I solved it by making the decision to review one journal article per week, putting a slot in my calendar for it, and promptly declining subsequent requests after the weekly slot is filled—or offering the next available opening to the editor.
A review is primarily for the benefit of the editor, to help them reach a decision about whether to publish or not, but I try to make my reviews useful for the authors as well. When I recommend revisions, I try to give clear, detailed feedback to guide the authors.
How is it structured. I developed a strategy for each research topic that I wanted to review including the broad survey section in the first half and the vignette sections in the second half.
The decision is made by the editor, and my job as a reviewer is to provide a nuanced and detailed report on the paper to support the editor. Since I am an active researcher and I submit papers, hoping for really helpful, constructive comments, it just makes sense that I do the same for others.
Yes, I sometimes wrote things that were wrong or at least imperfect when constructing a section from memory. Finally, I am more inclined to review for journals with double-blind reviewing practices and journals that are run by academic societies, because those are both things that I want to support and encourage.
Would there have been a better way to test these hypotheses or to analyze these results. I will turn down requests if the paper is too far removed from my own research areas, since I may not be able to provide an informed review.
Occasionally, there are difficulties with a potentially publishable article that I think I can't properly assess in half a day, in which case I will return the paper to the journal with an explanation and a suggestion for an expert who might be closer to that aspect of the research. I would not want to review for a journal that does not offer an unbiased review process.
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. To me, it is biased to reach a verdict on a paper based on how groundbreaking or novel the results are, for example.
Narrowing the scope of the article to conform to these boundaries was perhaps the biggest challenge of this process. While some educational establishments allow it, you should still try to stay within a single-page limit.
My adviser and I settled on devoting the first half of our article to a broad survey of a few key research topics for example, the physical details of the caspase-substrate interaction and devoting the second half to a few highly detailed vignettes about some of the hundreds of known caspase substrates.
Make sure to get permission to reproduce any figures in your review. Third, I consider whether the results or the proposed methodology have some potential broader applicability or relevance, because in my opinion this is important.
As a result of this they suffer from eye sores and head aches. 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.
Depending on how much time I have, I sometimes also end with a section of minor comments.
Sample paper review Paper: A Data Mining Analysis of RTID Alarms Reviewer: XXXXX RATINGS OF PAPER [Please rate the following by entering a score between -3 to 3 with 0 being the average based on. APPENDIX E Guidelines for Writing Scientific Papers "Write with precision, clarity and economy. Every sentence should convey the exact truth as simply as possible." Instructions to Authors Ecology 19 64 your research, not summarize and evaluate all past literature on the subject (which is the purpose of a review paper).
Many. Summaries and critiques are two ways to write a review of a scientific journal article. Both types of writing ask you first to read and understand an article from the primary literature about your topic.
writing the first draft, the goal is to get something down on paper, so it does not matter if sentences are incomplete and the grammar incorrect, provided that the main points and ideas have been captures on paper. Try to write quickly, to keep the flow going.
Use abbreviations and leave space for words that do not come to mind immediately.
A review article differs from a research article in that the review article examines the evidence presented in a Your life as a researcher, student, and writer will be research article, rather than producing research itself. • Structure of a scientific paper • Selecting a journal • Submission • Revision and galley proof Note good and bad writing styles in the literature.
Some are simple and easy to follow, some are just too complex. Reviewers do not wish to review papers that are not readable.
Badly written papers are often.How to write a scientific review paper pdf