Peer reviewers must ensure that they answer the following questions in their report: Conclusions that are overstated or out of sync with the findings will adversely impact my review and recommendations.
Regardless, there are some invariant questions that most reviewers would or at least should always consider, including: Having said that, I tend to define my expertise fairly broadly for reviewing purposes.
To me, it is biased to reach a verdict on a paper based on how groundbreaking or novel the results are, for example. What do you consider when deciding whether to accept an invitation to review a paper. An outline of the manuscript lifecycle, from submission to publication, can be viewed here.
Do they properly show the data. 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. The only other factor I pay attention to is the scientific integrity of the journal. If the authors have presented a new tool or software, I will test it in detail.
If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. 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.
They should then provide general comments to be addressed, followed by any specific comments they may have.
It is imperative as a researcher to understand this process. As I go along, I use a highlighter and other pens, so the manuscript is usually colorful after I read it.
Another common mistake is writing an unfocused review that is lost in the details. This kernel is often what separates an important research contribution from a simple matter of engineering.
And now I am in the happy situation of only experiencing late-review guilt on Friday afternoons, when I still have some time ahead of me to complete the week's review. Due to the subjective nature of this judgment, it is all the more important that your writing is clearand well-matched to what a reviewer is looking for i.
Sometimes a member of the program committee e. When I recommend revisions, I try to give clear, detailed feedback to guide the authors. First, is it well written.
It might solve the problem for an important set of operating conditions or under a new set of assumptions. Does the theoretical argument make sense. If the conclusion involves comparison to previous work, is the comparison performed in a controlled manner, using an equivalent or at least fair experimental setup.
I want statements of fact, not opinion or speculation, backed up by data. I also consider whether the article contains a good Introduction and description of the state of the art, as that indirectly shows whether the authors have a good knowledge of the field.
There are also a few nice summaries of the review process for conferences in different areas of computer science that lend visibility into the process e. Not every publication venue is the same. I usually pay close attention to the use—and misuse—of frequentist statistics.
As I go along, I use a highlighter and other pens, so the manuscript is usually colorful after I read it. Step'by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research Michaei Coughian, Patricia Cronin, Frances Ryan Research questions - guidelines for critiquing a quantitative research study The primary purpose of the literature review is to define or develop the research.
To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received which will bring you to the submission/reviewing system. If you experience difficulties accessing the paper, you might find this video helpful.
Format for a review paper Title page: Title-- reflecting topic of review Your Name Date Abstract: An abstract should be of approximately janettravellmd.come a brief summary of the review question being addressed or rationale for the review, the major.
Nov 16, · How to Write an Article Review. In this Article: Article Summary Preparing to Write Your Review Writing the Article Review Sample Article Reviews Community Q&A. An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article.
Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field%(). Sample Review of a Graded Paper This document contains an excerpt of a student's graded paper with sample feedback from the Writing Center.
Please click on the file to view. 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 ).Guidelines for reviewing research papers