How to review a research paper. The Paper Reviewing Process 2019-01-10
How to review a research paper Rating:
4,5/10
339
reviews
How to review a research paper
Organizing the Paper: Use topic headings. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. There are a few aspects that I make sure to address, though I cover a lot more ground as well. Google does not distinguish or judge the quality of results, only how search engine friendly a paper is. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any ad hominem remarks or personal details including your name unless the journal you are invited to review for employs. Conclusions Conclusions can be the most difficult part of a paper to write, particularly if the context and research design have not been addressed properly in the first place.
Elsevier journals use different submission systems so there is no one generic login link. Are the conclusions of the study consistent with the results of the analysis? At the same time, a literature review that synthesizes findings and data from multiple primary sources is also a research article. At some point during this reading, you will start preparing the outline for your review paper. Such judgments have no place in the assessment of scientific quality, and they encourage publication bias from journals as well as bad practices from authors to produce attractive results by cherry picking. As I go along, I use a highlighter and other pens, so the manuscript is usually colorful after I read it. The Recommendation Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors.
It is a fully-fledged evaluation of the author's ideas expressed in the article. A day before yesterday I met one of the Eminent Professor in India. Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. If not, what would be required to make their case credible? Post-peer review maintains that the publication of scientific findings is the beginning of their evaluation, not the end. It will also provide you with an overview of the new advances in the field and help you when writing and submitting your own articles. Your contribution as a referee helps keep the scientific process as fair as possible. Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 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.
A literature review is not simply a chronological catalog of all your sources, but an evaluation. Indeed no judgement can be made about the validity of a piece of research simply by counting the cases or referring to the unit of analysis. As with any paper, aim to write clearly and in a way that will be interesting for your intended audience. Remember to stick to the point and make sure that there is no unrelated information. If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review. Browsing the comments on articles in PeerJ, PubPeer and PubMed Commons will help you see how other scientists approach reviewing a paper. I try hard to avoid rude or disparaging remarks.
I've known too many junior scientists who have been burned from signing their reviews early on in their careers. Mention the conclusions drawn by the author. Altogether, it usually takes me more than a day. Typically, at least 8-10 references are required. Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. But it expects you to do a lot of interpretation.
Finally, there are occasions where you get extremely exciting papers that you might be tempted to share with your colleagues, but you have to resist the urge and maintain strict confidentiality. First, the advice below may seem rather long-winded. You should explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. If the paper is a tutorial, is the description correct and clearly described? Use the formal style and narrate impersonally or from the third person, avoid the first person. 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. Your summary should be of help here. It is not merely a report on some references you found.
How To Write an Article Review In A Few Steps: Example, Outline, Formatting
Perhaps sample sections of interview transcripts can be given; examples of diaries or other source documents can be used to illustrate the approach taken. Instead, a review paper synthesizes the results from several primary literature papers to produce a coherent argument about a topic or focused description of a field. Repeatable Methods These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. Like any other written piece, an article review requires thorough preparation. If the thesis is not stated in the article, it is up to you to figure it out yourself. The First Read-Through Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript.
A good literature review should critically evaluate the quality and findings of the research. If there are not hypotheses, is the paper a review, case study, contribution to theory development or some other type of study? My tone is one of trying to be constructive and helpful even though, of course, the authors might not agree with that characterization. If your assignment is to review specific works, then this step is already accomplished for you. I never use value judgments or value-laden adjectives. At first, Sarah was wearing a high school uniform while singing, but after a few minutes, she stripped down her clothes and flaunted her sexy body. Outline your review Look at your summary to see if the author was clear about each of them.
For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. Given one methodological stance, hypotheses may be irrelevant. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through. If you know the criteria that a reviewer will use to judge your paper, you are in a much better position to tailor your paper so that it has a higher chance of being accepted. The author can then reply to each point in turn.
When writing your review, consider the type of review that you would like to receive. Thus, good papers will begin with what is well-known and move gradually deeper into the less well-known Latour, 1987: 57. 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. In all, we can say the goal of the readers of all theses kinds of articles differs. The benchmark for acceptance is whether the manuscript makes a useful contribution to the knowledge base or understanding of the subject matter. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence.
