Detailed feedback about statistics in a critical review Michael McCarthy says:
Share via Email Reviewing is a good way to keep up with literature and sharpen your own writing, says Brian Lucey. You, putative reviewer, are the peer.
This is a core part of your job as an academic.
It shows both that you are part of the academy and willing to engage in the interplay that makes the profession work. Reviewing is an excellent way to keep up with literature and a superb way to sharpen your own writing.
Rejection should be a positive experience for all. When you receive an email inviting you to review a paper, most journals will provide a link to either accept and or reject.
It may also give you specific instructions, so follow these. Suggest to the authors how to overcome the shortcomings you identify. It is usually much harder to suggest how to fix them.
A review is more than a suggestion to revise, reject or accept. It should be meaningful. It should guide the author on what is good and what is not so good as you see it.
Explain what is going on in your thinking. Your role is that of a scientific peer. It is not that of an editor in either the proofreading or decision-making sense. If the paper is rife with errors, tell the editor and give examples.
Concentrate rather on showing the added value of your scientific knowledge and not so much on missing commas etc. If as part of your revision you think that the paper should be professionally proof edited as I sometimes do with my ownthen say so.
A caveat to this is that the paper and indeed the review is an act of communication. If it is so poorly constructed as to fail in its communication role, then tell me that. Remember that in the end the paper is not about style but substance, unless the style gets in the way. When you agree to review a paper with a timeline given unless there is a really good reasonyou should stick to it.
Believe it or not, editors do track who is reviewing what and when. We have to balance the natural tendency to give more reviews to those who do most, with a realisation that people are doing this essentially pro bono and have limited time.
So the timeframe we give is designed to be timely but mildly pressurising.
Be realistic about the work presented, changes you suggest and your role. You as a reviewer are part of the process. I, as editor, have that.
Sometimes editors override the suggestions of reviewers hopefully with good reasons. You can, and in that case engage, in a dialog with the editor as to why — ideally this is a learning opportunity for all.
Sometimes this overriding is because the bar being set by the reviewer is too high for that paper. Data may not be available, a paradigm suggested not appropriate.
These may be useful suggestions for another paper but each paper is, or should be, one main idea. Think of the best review you have gotten in terms of guiding a paper forward.How to write a peer review Matt Ayres, Dec (Jan ) The primary literature, which is arguably the backbone of scientific knowledge, is defined by the peer review process.
Draft the review as you go along, then redraft. Most publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Read some of these and follow the main principles.
Check out the peer review examples at F Research to see how other reviewers write up their reports and give constructive feedback to authors. Time to Submit the Review! Be sure you turn in your report on time. Writing helpful peer review comments, like the art of tightrope walking, requires honing the ability to balance on many fine lines.
Referees have to find a balance between overstepping the lines of being too critical or too careful, too specific or too vague, too conclusive or too ambiguous and the list goes on. How to write a reviewer report 4 5 Tips for preparing a reviewer report For the evaluation of the paper, a reviewer’s report form is provided on the online reviewing system for you to ﬁll in, dealing with the appropriateness of the presentation and scientiﬁc quality of the paper.
Peer review of a review article Gustavo Gutierrez Gonzalez says: Hydbring and Badalian-Very summarize in this review, the current status in the potential .