How to write paper review report
How to write a review report sample
For a more on this topic, watch our on-demand webinar. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. 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. We begin by considering the whole peer review publishing process, not just the act of peer review itself. Then, throughout, if what I am reading is only partly comprehensible, I do not spend a lot of energy trying to make sense of it, but in my review I will relay the ambiguities to the author. I want statements of fact, not opinion or speculation, backed up by data. These might include: Any instances where meaning is ambiguous. You will normally be asked to indicate your recommendation e. Would there have been a better way to test these hypotheses or to analyze these results? If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described by the author? 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. Good luck! I've heard from some reviewers that they're more likely to accept an invitation to review from a more prestigious journal and don't feel as bad about rejecting invitations from more specialized journals. As I go along, I use a highlighter and other pens, so the manuscript is usually colorful after I read it.
Present the most interesting data? Instead, it would need to change the way we think about some aspect of your field.
It is also very important that the authors guide you through the whole article and explain every table, every figure, and every scheme. Minor comments may include flagging the mislabeling of a figure in the text or a misspelling that changes the meaning of a common term.
How to write paper review report
But first, we washed the jujube fruits to remove dirt. If the paper has horrendous difficulties or a confused concept, I will specify that but will not do a lot of work to try to suggest fixes for every flaw. How is it structured? But I only mention flaws if they matter, and I will make sure the review is constructive. That usually becomes apparent by the Methods section. What are the biggest challenges facing researchers in this field today? The detailed reading and the sense-making process, in particular, takes a long time. This is an extremely important part of your job as a reviewer Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected. I want to give them honest feedback of the same type that I hope to receive when I submit a paper. If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section Minor Issues Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? When I recommend revisions, I try to give clear, detailed feedback to guide the authors. I do this because editors might have a harder time landing reviewers for these papers too, and because people who aren't deeply connected into our research community also deserve quality feedback. Ethical issues — you might want to consider disclosing these in a confidential comments section if you are unsure.
Many journals send the decision letters to the reviewers. Second, I pay attention to the results and whether they have been compared with other similar published studies. If there are insufficient data, it might be appropriate to recommend revision.
Third, I consider whether the results or the proposed methodology have some potential broader applicability or relevance, because in my opinion this is important.
I always ask myself what makes this paper relevant and what new advance or contribution the paper represents. Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? I also consider the journal.
Paper review comments sample
How can this be corrected? Three editorial experts discuss the initiative in this on-demand webinar. You should also try to be objective and constructive, not subjective and destructive. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. To what extent does the Discussion place the findings in a wider context and achieve a balance between interpretation and useful speculation versus tedious waffling? See Improving the Manuscript Recommending Revision Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. Present the most interesting data?
based on 62 review