Another common mistake is writing an unfocused review that is lost in the details. Finally, it is time to start writing. Plan what these figures will be in your paper. And if you identify a paper that you think has a substantial error that is not easily fixed, then the authors of this paper will find it hard to not hold a grudge. Next, read all the other review papers that have been published on related topics, or similar topics in related fields, over the previous two to three decades, to make sure that you understand what has been already done and to make sure that there is a gap in the existing reviews. Are the methods robust and well controlled? 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. Those with higher educational attainment resort more to formula feeding and mixed feeding than those with lower educational attainment.
I usually write down all the things that I noticed, good and bad, so my decision does not influence the content and length of my review. Besides this, the researcher will also examine the phenomenon through observations in numerical representations and through statistical analysis. Also, I take the point of view that if the author cannot convincingly explain her study and findings to an informed reader, then the paper has not met the burden for acceptance in the journal. 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. In addition, you should inform the reader of the experimental techniques that were used to generate the data. Unless the journal uses a structured review format, I usually begin my review with a general statement of my understanding of the paper and what it claims, followed by a paragraph offering an overall assessment. The detailed reading and the sense-making process, in particular, takes a long time.
I believe it improves the transparency of the review process, and it also helps me police the quality of my own assessments by making me personally accountable. Comparative performance of stirred and Pachuca tanks in the bioleaching of a copper concentrate. It should certainly have a Conclusions section: what should change as a result of what you have found and discussed in your review? Majority of the mothers that served as respondents in this study fall under the age range of 17-30 years old. Sloppiness anywhere makes me worry. The text starts at the top, left flushed, double-spaced. It is not merely a report on some references you found.
So although peer reviewing definitely takes some effort, in the end it will be worth it. Then I look at how convincing the results are and how careful the description is. I think a lot of reviewers approach a paper with the philosophy that they are there to identify flaws. Organizing the Paper: Use topic headings. Is it aimed at new post graduate students who are just getting into the field and need somewhere to start? Is it aimed at people in related fields who may be venturing into a new cross-disciplinary area? 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. There are a wide variety of review styles from ones aimed at a general audience e. As a range of institutions and organizations around the world 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.
Primary antibody was used at a dilution of 1:5000. A key aspect of a review paper is that it provides the evidence for a particular point of view in a field. Shutterstock originally appeared on : the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. Most of the mothers are housewives and the others remaining have full-time jobs, part-time jobs and self-employed. Moreover, if there is more than one reference of the same author and the same year, they should be indicated with letters. I usually pay close attention to the use—and misuse—of frequentist statistics. 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.
More than half of them were also college graduates while a significant number are undergraduates and have only reached until high school. Footnotes can be included below the table. I always ask myself what makes this paper relevant and what new advance or contribution the paper represents. As I go along, I use a highlighter and other pens, so the manuscript is usually colorful after I read it. First, make sure that you are an expert in the subject and aware of the recent literature on the topic you have in mind.
They influence the mothers in deciding to feed the baby with formula and in choosing, as well, which brand of formula is best for their babies. After all, even though you were selected as an expert, for each review the editor has to decide how much they believe in your assessment. 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. When two or more references are cited in the same parenthesis, the authors should be in chronological order. Root portion of seedlings was excised 4 hrs of post inoculation and used for the sectioning.
A letter was also addressed to the City Health Officer to obtain endorsement and consent to conduct a research in selected barangays and distribute questionnaires to the mothers in the vicinity. The study also showed that mothers who are married and living with their partners are more likely to breastfeed their infants than single mothers. I try to be as constructive as possible. But I only mention flaws if they matter, and I will make sure the review is constructive. The randomly sampled respondents will be asked by the researcher for consent and approval to answer the questionnaire until the desired number of respondents which is 100 is reached.
Then I make specific comments on each section, listing the major questions or concerns. If there is a major flaw or concern, I try to be honest and back it up with evidence. The soundness of the entire peer-review process depends on the quality of the reviews that we write. Are the methods suitable to investigate the research question and test the hypotheses? They must be in 2D and have a title. Some journals have structured review criteria; others just ask for general and specific comments. Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous work? If I find the paper especially interesting and even if I am going to recommend rejection , I 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.
Also, if you don't accept a review invitation, give her a few names for suggested reviewers, especially senior Ph. 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. Is the statistical analysis sound and justified? Qualitative researchers aim to gather an in-depth understanding of human behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior. And we never know what findings will amount to in a few years; many breakthrough studies were not recognized as such for many years. If there are things I struggle with, I will suggest that the authors revise parts of their paper to make it more solid or broadly accessible.