If there is a major flaw or concern, I try to be honest and back it up with evidence. Carefully consider placement of, naming of, and location of figures. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: For me, the first question is this: In some instances, the abstract may change slightly pending content revisions required during the peer review process.
If I find the paper especially interesting and even if I am going to recommend rejectionI tend to give a more detailed review because I want to encourage the authors to develop the paper or, maybe, to do a new paper along the lines suggested in the review.
However, I am keenly aware of other cases that did not work out nearly as congenially. The decision is made by the editor, and my job as a reviewer is to provide a nuanced and detailed report on the paper to support the editor.
Besides that, I make notes on an extra sheet. Excellent writing in English is hard, even for those of us for whom it is our first language!
Therefore it often works well to complete this portion of the manuscript last. Listen to and learn from them! One of the major pitfalls in writing the discussion section is overstating the significance of your findings 4 or making very strong statements. Rationale, process, and pitfalls.
First, I consider how the question being addressed fits into the current status of our knowledge. 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.
Get familiar with software like Papers or any other PDF-management softwareEndNote and Adobe Illustrator or whatever graphics program the journal suggests. Are the reported analyses appropriate? I always write my reviews as though I am talking to the scientists in person.
First, is it well written? 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.
In order for the results of research to be accessible to other professionals and have a potential effect on the greater scientific community, it must be written and published.
The purpose of sufficient detail in the methods section is so that an appropriately trained person would be able to replicate your experiments. Remember that reviewing is a place where the implicit hierarchy of academia should not apply, ever.In the end, I finished by the deadline (well, plus one two-week extension the editor agreed to grant me) and was very happy with the product and with all I had learned about caspase substrates, about the scientific literature and about the review-writing process.
The literature review of a scientific paper is not an exhaustive review of all available knowledge in a given field of study. That type of thorough review should be left to review articles or textbook chapters.
A review is meant to be a survey of the current state of a field - and the less you know about a field or topic at the outset, the more work you're going to have to do in order to have an authoritative voice that can provide insight about the research that has been done.
Apr 06, · It should certainly have a Conclusions section: what should change as a result of what you have found and discussed in your review? As with any paper, aim to write clearly and in a way that will be interesting for your intended audience.
Aim to write in a way that makes it easy to find and understand your key messages, even for skim-readers. A review paper is not a "term paper" or book report. It is not merely a report on some references you found. 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.
In this class, you will be required to write a scientific review paper. A secondary research paper or review paper is not a 'book report' or an annotated list of experiments in a particular field, but demands a considerable, complete literature review.5/5(24).Download