· Often, good review papers will include figures that combine results from the literature that you have searched through to tell readers something new, either through new, collated representations of Now, write your review. Make a coherent argument to the editor about the paper’s suitability for publication in that journal. In Paragraph 1, summarize the authors’ research, which helps the editor contextualize the paper and adds weight to your judgment (you’ve shown you understand the paper) · Do not expect a review draft to be perfect. Your paper should consist of the main parts such as introduction, the body of the paper, conclusion and future directions, the literature cited. In the intro start with first summarizing the main
How to review a paper | Science | AAAS
A good peer review requires disciplinary expertise, a keen and critical eye, and a diplomatic and constructive approach. As junior scientists develop their expertise and make names for themselves, they are increasingly likely to receive invitations to review research manuscripts. Writing a good review requires expertise in the field, how to do a review paper, an intimate knowledge of research methods, a critical mind, the ability to give fair and constructive feedback, and sensitivity to the feelings of authors on the receiving end.
As a range of institutions and organizations around the world celebrate the essential role of peer review in upholding the quality of published research this week, Science Careers shares collected insights and advice about how to review papers from researchers across the spectrum. The responses have been edited for clarity and brevity.
I am very open-minded when it comes to accepting invitations to review. I see it as a tit-for-tat duty: Since I am an active researcher and I submit papers, hoping for really helpful, constructive comments, it just makes how to do a review paper that I do the same for others.
The only other factor I pay attention to is the scientific integrity of the journal. I would not want to review for a journal that does not offer an unbiased review process. I'm more prone to agree to do a review if it involves a system or method in which I have a particular expertise.
And I'm not going to take on a paper to review unless I have the time. For every manuscript of my own that I submit to a journal, I review at least a few papers, so I give back to the system plenty.
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. That makes things a how to do a review paper harder for editors of the less prestigious journals, and that's why I am more inclined to take on reviews from them.
If I've never heard of the authors, and particularly if they're from a less developed nation, then I'm also more likely to accept the invitation. 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. 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.
I usually consider first the relevance to my own expertise. 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.
Having said that, I tend to define my expertise fairly broadly for reviewing purposes. I also consider the journal, how to do a review paper. I am more willing to review for journals that I read or publish in. 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. Walshprofessor of public policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta.
Some journals have structured review criteria; others just ask for general how to do a review paper specific comments. Knowing this in advance helps save time later. I almost never print out how to do a review paper for review; I prefer to work with the electronic version.
I always read the paper sequentially, from start to finish, making comments on the PDF as I go along. I look for specific indicators of research quality, asking myself questions such as: Are the background literature and study rationale clearly articulated? Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous work?
Are the methods robust and well controlled? Are the reported analyses appropriate? I usually pay close attention to the use—and misuse—of frequentist statistics. Is the presentation of results clear and accessible? 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? I subconsciously follow a checklist. First, is it well written? That usually becomes apparent by the Methods section.
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 should also have a good idea of the how to do a review paper and context within the first few pages, and it matters whether the hypothesis makes sense or is interesting.
Then I read the Methods section very carefully, how to do a review paper. Mostly I am concerned with credibility: Could this methodology have answered their question? Then I look at how convincing the results are and how careful the description is. Sloppiness anywhere makes me worry. The parts of the Discussion I focus on most are context and whether the authors make claims that overreach the data.
This is done all the time, to varying degrees. I want statements of fact, not opinion or speculation, backed up by data. Most journals don't have special instructions, so I just read the paper, usually starting with the Abstract, looking at the figures, and then reading the paper in a linear fashion. There are a few aspects that I make sure to address, though I cover a lot more ground as well. First, I consider how the question being addressed fits into the current status of our knowledge.
Second, I ponder how well the work that was conducted actually addresses the central question posed in the paper. 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. Third, I make sure that the design of the methods and analyses are appropriate. First, I read a printed version to get an overall impression.
What is the paper about? How is it structured? 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. When diving in deeper, first I try to assess whether all the important papers are cited in the references, as that also often correlates with the quality of the manuscript itself.
Then, right in the Introduction, you can often recognize whether the authors considered the full context of their topic. After that, I check whether all the experiments and data make sense, paying particular attention to whether the authors carefully designed and performed the experiments and whether they analyzed and interpreted the results in a comprehensible way.
It is also very important how to do a review paper the authors guide you through the whole article and explain every table, every figure, and every scheme.
As I go along, I use a highlighter and other pens, so the manuscript is usually colorful after I read it. Besides that, I make notes on an extra sheet. I first familiarize myself with the manuscript and how to do a review paper relevant snippets of the literature to make sure that the manuscript is coherent with the larger scientific domain.
Then I scrutinize it section by section, noting if there are any missing links in the story and if certain points are under- or overrepresented. I print out the paper, as I find it easier to make comments on the printed pages than on an electronic reader. At this first stage, I try to be as open-minded as I can. Does the theoretical argument make sense? Does it contribute to how to do a review paper knowledge, or is it old wine in new bottles?
Is there an angle the authors have overlooked? This often requires doing some background reading, how to do a review paper, sometimes including some of the cited literature, about the theory presented in the manuscript.
I then delve into the Methods and Results sections. Are the methods suitable to investigate the research question and test the hypotheses? Would there have been a better way to test these hypotheses or to analyze these results? Is the statistical analysis sound and justified? Could I replicate the results using the information in the Methods and the description of the analysis? I even selectively check individual numbers to see whether they are statistically plausible, how to do a review paper.
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, how to do a review paper. 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. I spend a fair amount of time looking at the figures.
In addition to considering their overall quality, sometimes figures raise questions about the methods used to collect or analyze the data, how to do a review paper, or they fail to support a finding reported in the paper and warrant further clarification.
Conclusions that are overstated or out of sync with the findings will adversely impact my review and recommendations. I generally read on the computer and start with the Abstract to get an initial impression, how to do a review paper.
Then I read the paper as a whole, thoroughly and from beginning to end, taking notes as I read. For me, the first question is this: Is the research sound? And secondly, how can it be improved? 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. The main aspects I consider are the novelty of the article and its impact on the field.
I always ask myself what makes this paper relevant and what new advance or contribution the paper represents. Then I follow a routine that will help me evaluate this. 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.
Second, I pay attention to the results and whether they have been compared with other similar published studies. Third, I consider whether the results or the proposed methodology have some potential broader applicability or relevance, because in my opinion this is important.
Finally, I evaluate whether the methodology used is appropriate. If the authors have presented a new tool or software, I will test it in detail. 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. Then I run through the specific points I raised in my summary in more detail, in the order they appeared in the paper, providing page and paragraph numbers for most.
Finally comes a list of really minor stuff, which I try to keep to a minimum. 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.
How to Write an Article Review - Example, Format, Dos and Don'ts [UPDATED] - EssayPro
, time: 16:27How to Review a Paper - Edge for Scholars
· Often, good review papers will include figures that combine results from the literature that you have searched through to tell readers something new, either through new, collated representations of Now, write your review. Make a coherent argument to the editor about the paper’s suitability for publication in that journal. In Paragraph 1, summarize the authors’ research, which helps the editor contextualize the paper and adds weight to your judgment (you’ve shown you understand the paper) · Do not expect a review draft to be perfect. Your paper should consist of the main parts such as introduction, the body of the paper, conclusion and future directions, the literature cited. In the intro start with first summarizing the main
No comments:
Post a Comment