Then I look at how convincing the results are and how careful the description is. The parts of the Discussion I focus on most are context and whether the authors make claims that overreach the data. 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.Tags: Essay Help Thesis StatementPersonal Statement For Graduate School Sample EssaysPurdue EssayApa S Of A DissertationTopics For Argumentative Persuasive EssaysWhat Is The Appendix Of A Research Paper
Having said that, I tend to define my expertise fairly broadly for reviewing purposes. 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.
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? (I usually pay close attention to the use—and misuse—of frequentist statistics.) Is the presentation of results clear and accessible? That usually becomes apparent by the Methods section.
I usually consider first the relevance to my own expertise.
How To Write Journal Paper Essay On Impact Of Media On Students
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.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.That makes things a lot 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 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 sense that I do the same for others.So accepting an invitation for me is the default, unless a paper is really far from my expertise or my workload doesn’t allow it.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.The responses have been edited for clarity and brevity.I consider four factors: whether I'm sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic to offer an intelligent assessment, how interesting I find the research topic, whether I’m free of any conflict of interest, and whether I have the time.