Writing peer review papers
After all, even though you were selected as an expert, for each review the editor has to decide how much they believe in your assessment.
While the data are biased, the claim by Amrheim et al. Ensure that your critiques are constructive and not offensive.
If you need a lot of extra time, the journal might need to contact other reviewers or notify the author about the delay. Major flaws will need considerable time to explain or correct.
Examples of peer review feedback
Besides that, I make notes on an extra sheet. List of References You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance. End this section with your recommended course of action. Indeed, editors regularly receive poor papers that are accompanied by a letter from a graduate student saying that his or her professor recommended submission. The author can then reply to each point in turn. On the other hand, the activity of refereeing scientific articles may also be of value for the reviewer, for a variety of reasons including knowledge improvement on specific topics due to the possibility of reading articles before the information is published, may give valuable ideas for future studies on the same or other topics, may help improving you own writing skill, and is also a meaningful activity that can be included in the scientific curriculum. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection. Beginning researchers have a tendency to send wider, longer, and less interesting tables than seasoned researchers. Then I look at how convincing the results are and how careful the description is.
We hope these 12 steps help get you on your way for your first peer review, or improving the structure of your current reviews. You can get in touch with the editor at naturecareerseditor nature.
Peer review guidelines for students
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. If you're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues. I have obviously declined to peer-review these articles and I really hope that other colleagues, whose background is also quite different from the topic of the articles, have also done so. Submit your review without proofreading it and checking everything one more time. This article aims to fine tune competence in writing, not to teach the basics of science. This makes article revision virtually unfeasible, or else the authors may introduce changes in the manuscript that are not really necessary. When the data are very informative relative to the different priors, the posteriors will be similar, although not identical. Be specific so the authors know what they need to do to improve. But over time authors with both writing styles make successful contributions to science. Although some publishers advocate that time should not be spent to polish grammar or spelling, not all journals carefully revise the original text before publication. Conclusions that are overstated or out of sync with the findings will adversely impact my review and recommendations.
Read and follow the journal's instructions. If they disagree with your analysis, they should, from your comments, be able to understand that this is not your fault.
If you cannot get a current copy on-line or at a university library, write to the editor explaining the situation and the editor — surely pleased at your concern — will likely send a sample copy.
This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.
Your critique and accolades may help convince the editor of the importance of the article. Therefore, I prefer to highlight at least the major stylistic issues encountered during my readings, so that these can be fixed by the authors while resubmitting their manuscript.
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.
How long should a peer review be
This alone may save you from immediate rejection or the work of rewriting the text and reorganizing the table. A successful publishing career means writing for a highly specific scientific audience and it takes most authors years to discover how to do this in a way that results in a high percentage of accepted papers. In e-publishing, some journals allow appendix materials such as video files, sound, and URL access that are difficult or impossible to include in print journals, as well as more traditional materials. When the data are very informative relative to the different priors, the posteriors will be similar, although not identical. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. Does the theoretical argument make sense? 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. Need an extension? There may be other options e. Keywords: Scientific writing, peer-review, article, publication, publishing Introduction The contribution of peer-reviewers is invaluable in scholarly publishing, science and medicine. How is it structured? I never use value judgments or value-laden adjectives. Colyvan, M. It is not fair to judge a manuscript only guided by impressions.
based on 34 review