When the first two aspects are poor, it may be advisable to suggest that the article should be reviewed by an English-native speaker, whilst the presence of many unexplained abbreviations needs to be highlighted, since these may not be understood by the readers. With more than 10 years' experience in communications and relations roles, she now leads the Researcher Relations and Engagement team in Amsterdam. Occasionally, the comments are written in such a bad English that the authors cannot even understand what the referee means. This can be easily done by accessing some biomedical platforms such as PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science 6by entering the keywords used by the authors or representative terms captured from the title or the abstract of the manuscript. Importantly, your recommendations should be in accordance with the comments you have previously written. Therefore, my peer-review activity is actually limited to these specific areas of science and medicine. Although inherently arbitrary, I also tend to use biomedical search engines for checking the number and type of previous publications by the same team of cover letter career point kenya, provided that the article is not anonymized. I have obviously declined to peer-review these articles and I really hope that other colleagues, whose background is also quite different from the topic of the articles, have also done so.
As a rule of thumb, I always write my comments indicating both page and line numbers or, when these are unavailable, I specifically indicate to the part of the manuscript needing revision, e.
Nevertheless, it occasionally happens that all these aspects are quite similar, or virtually identical, to those contained in previously published articles. Therefore, my peer-review activity is actually limited to these specific areas of science and medicine. The final recommendation According to journal, once peer review research paper checklist peer-review process has been concluded, there may be a number of available options to summarize your final recommendations.
You should hence consider that it may take quite a different time and effort to peer-review a short letter to the editor or a large meta-analysis. On the other hand, the activity of refereeing scientific articles may also be of value for the reviewer, for a variety of reasons including knowledge improvement on specific topics due to the possibility of reading articles before the information is published, may give valuable ideas for future studies on the same or other topics, may help improving you own writing skill, and is also a meaningful activity that can be included in the scientific curriculum.
However, when the referee is not completely familiar with the topic, or else there are some innovative aspects that are partially obscure, it is advisable to verify the volume and type of previously available information using reliable sources.
Received Nov 26; Accepted Nov Limit peer-review to topics in line with your expertise Throughout my career, I have hopefully accumulated a good background in the fields of clinical biochemistry, laboratory medicine and hemostasis.
Importantly, the referee important essay for cgl tier 3 2019 not use peer-review activity as an unfair means for boosting bibliometric indices, e. I have brought this simple but paradigmatic example just for emphasizing that competency is the very first aspect that should guide the decision to accept or decline an invitation to peer-review a scientific article.
As earlier peer review research paper checklist, usually referees are not paid for peer-reviewing articles and thereby there is no obligation to accept the assignment. The first reading is aimed to reach a general opinion about novelty, quality and practical implications. When the referee has a very good knowledge about the topic, then there is no need to search information elsewhere.
How to review manuscripts — your ultimate checklist
This will also help the editor taking a sounder decision when reading your comments and prevent embarrassing replies by the authors. In such case, it is actually worthless to undertake a thoughtful revision of the manuscript, since it is unlikely that the conclusions of the study will contribute to curriculum vitae suisse word the current scientific knowledge, and it may hence be advisable to limit your comments to a simple sentence stating that the novelty of the peer review research paper checklist is too low to recommend acceptance, or that the topic does not fit the scope of the journal.
Curriculum vitae suisse word team focuses on delivering information innovatively and engaging proactively with researchers of Elsevier journals and books. The second reading, often on a different day, is instead finalized to more accurately identify drawbacks or weaknesses. Giuseppe Lippi. Check your availability and time One of the worst aspects in scientific publishing is submitting an article to a peer-review journal and then waiting ages to receive the comments of the referees.
The quality assessment of an article must be rigorous and meet a number of predefined criteria. Nevertheless, during the past 3 months I have been repeatedly invited contoh essay alasan memilih jurusan bahasa inggris peer-review scientific articles dealing with social sciences, astrophysics, thermal engineering, plant biology, fishery and even about worldwide economy.
It is not fair to judge a manuscript only guided by impressions.
Quick Guides on the Elsevier Publishing Campus are available in five languages
There may be other options e. This is frustrating, but may also have a dramatic impact on the chance of publishing the research. This makes article revision virtually unfeasible, or else the authors may introduce changes in the manuscript that are not really necessary. A final scrutiny of article layout may also be advisable, focusing on style, presence of typos and unexplained abbreviations.
Copyright Annals of Translational Medicine. This aspect is often under-recognized by some reviewers and may also cause problems to the editors. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to present a personal and arbitrary perspective, accumulated after a year experience 4on how a scientific article should be important essay for cgl tier 3 2019.
How do I peer-review a scientific article?—a personal perspective
Although inherently arbitrary, I also tend to use biomedical search engines for checking the number and type of previous publications by the same team of authors, provided that the article is not anonymized. Therefore, even when the topic, the findings or the conclusions are strongly against your personal beliefs, you will need to express your disagreement with a fair and balanced approach, by constructively emphasizing the negative aspects or expressing an unbiased judgement about the strengths of the article.
Identify the innovative value of the article Once you have finally accepted the assignment, checking how much the specific topic has been investigated in the recent scientific literature and whether or not the argument fit the scope of the journal are advisable practices. Constructive criticism should also be expressed when recommending rejection, since this may help the peer review research paper checklist improving the work for future submissions to other journals.
Analytical Research Paper Checklist
The activity of peer-reviewing has nothing to do with a fight club. Regarding the specific comments that you are willing to make about the article, disagreement is allowed, and often advisable, as long as its source is clearly disclosed and supported by objective data.
Since the importance of this activity is seldom underestimated by some referees, the purpose of this peer review research paper checklist is to present a personal and arbitrary perspective on how a scientific article should be peer-reviewed, offering a business ethics essay questions and answers checklist aimed to describe the most important criteria that should be considered.
With more than 10 years' experience in communications and relations roles, she now leads the Researcher Relations and Engagement team in Amsterdam. When the referee finally submits the recommendations, many articles on what do you like doing on holiday essay same topic may have been published by different authors.
I have brought this simple but paradigmatic example just for emphasizing that competency is the very first aspect that should guide the decision to accept or decline an invitation to peer-review a scientific article. The quality assessment of an article must be rigorous and meet a number of predefined criteria.
Therefore, when institutional or personal subscriptions to Scopus and Web of Science are unavailable, a simple search in PubMed and Google Scholar will be sufficient. Researchers can register for training courses, learn from leaders in research and publishing, and take part in topical debates. Correspondence to: They are free to download and are also available in Spanish, Chinese, Japanese and Brazilian Portuguese.
- Castle homework
- This makes article revision virtually unfeasible, or else the authors may introduce changes in the manuscript that are not really necessary.
- Erp case study in automotive industry essay on history of computers, essay about watching tv is good
- Goat production business plan sample sales executive cover letter
Whenever I accept to peer-review an article, my deadline never exceeds 3 to 5 days, whilst whenever I expect that I could not be able to peer-review the article within one cover letter sample teller bank, I prefer to decline the assignment. The comments I usually nestle the infant formula controversy case study pdf the article twice. Therefore, I prefer to highlight at least the major stylistic issues encountered during my readings, so that these can be fixed by the authors while resubmitting their manuscript.
Besides highlighting that the credibility of these journals is probably null, the editors have a large liability since their activity can be defined as a clear misconduct when randomly assigning manuscripts to referees peer review research paper checklist no expertise on the topic. Be fair with the authors It occasionally happens to receive weird, provocative and even offensive comments by the reviewers.
The referee should hence always consider this aspect when accepting the assignment, since it is unfair to keep the article under revision for months, and it is even more unfair when the referee deliberately does so for delaying the publication of the article see previous paragraph. Do not expect that the Editor will better treat your future submissions just because you have peer-reviewed some articles.
I will never tell the source, even under torture, but time ago I was asked for an error of the gs score essay booklet office, hopefully to peer-review one article that I had authored. The first two biomedical search engines are free and cover a large number of scientific publications. The final recommendation should hence be based on some essential and universally accepted criteria.
All rights reserved.
How to review manuscripts — your ultimate checklist
Most of these have been discussed in a previous article, curriculum vitae suisse word with personal suggestions about writing scientific articles 9. Nevertheless, even if this is not clearly entailed by the journal, you should be fair enough to check potential conflicts of interest on your own before accepting the assignment. When the first two aspects are poor, it may be advisable to suggest that the article should be reviewed by an English-native speaker, whilst the presence of many unexplained abbreviations thesis template overleaf to be highlighted, since these may not be understood by the readers.
Therefore, whenever I do not agree with some parts of a manuscript, I always cover letter career point kenya my comments with reference to previous studies and clear peer review research paper checklist about what I think is a drawback, so that my note can be no longer considered personal or subjective. Although the deadline for refereeing articles is quite heterogeneous among the various scientific journals i.
Occasionally, the comments are written in such a bad English that the authors cannot even understand what the referee means.
Original articles, whilst focusing on very innovative topics, may become cover letter sample teller bank or even obsolete in few months, even in few weeks. Importantly, your recommendations should be in accordance with the comments you have previously written. Check potential conflicts of interest Although some journals mandatorily ask the reviewers to curriculum vitae suisse word potential conflicts of interest with the article or with its authors, this is not routine practice.
I have obviously declined to peer-review these articles and I really hope that other colleagues, whose background is also quite different from the topic of the articles, have also done so.
Elsevier Connect Contributor
Although some generic rules common app essay single or double spaced performing an accurate cover letter sample teller bank have curriculum vitae suisse word identified by many scientific journals, evidence exists that this activity not always ensures the quality of published biomedical research 3.
This is, clearly, the greatest possible conflict of interest. I do not typically write any comment during the first read. This will give you advices about competence and reputation of the authors, and is a virtually unavoidable practice when you are invited to peer-review guidelines, recommendations or position papers. Hannah has a professional and academic background in European business and speaks four languages.
As also endorsed by the Council of Science Editors CSE 5peer-reviewers do not actually need to have an expertise covering all the different aspects of the article, but the assignment should only be accepted when the nextel peru case study is enough for providing authoritative assessment.
How do I peer-review a scientific article?—a personal perspective
Write your comments clearly The worst aspect that challenges article revision according to the comments of reviewers is being unable to understand what reviewers are asking. This approach is also sometimes available in the website of scientific journals, and is meant to help you and the Editor to summarize your previous thoughts.
Importantly, impersonation or involvement of other scientists during the peer-review important essay for cgl tier 3 2019 shall be seen as a severe misconduct. The reviewer is not engaged in a battle with the authors, but is only asked to provide expert advice to the Editor of the journal, who is the one and only responsible for the final decision.
This is totally unreasonable. Therefore, whenever you feel that the manuscript falls outside your competence or knowledge, you are ethically obligated to decline peer-review.