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.
My reviews usually start out with a short summary and a highlight of the strengths of the manuscript before briefly listing the weaknesses that I believe should be addressed.
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.
I think a lot of reviewers approach a paper with the philosophy that they are there to identify flaws. It will also provide you with an overview of the new advances in the field and help you when writing and submitting your own articles.
Finally comes a list of really minor stuff, which I try to keep to a minimum. 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.
When diving in deeper, first I try to assess whether all the important papers are cited in the references, as that also often correlates with the quality of the manuscript itself.
Do you sign it. I usually sit on the review for a day and then reread it to be sure it is balanced and fair before deciding anything. Short reviews translate into strong recommendations and vice versa.
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. It will help you make the right decision. But I only mention flaws if they matter, and I will make sure the review is constructive.
Then I run through the specific points I raised in my summary in more detail, in the order they appeared in the paper, providing page and paragraph numbers for most.
Third, I consider whether the results or the proposed methodology have some potential broader applicability or relevance, because in my opinion this is important.
Are the background literature and study rationale clearly articulated. How is it structured. That usually becomes apparent by the Methods section.
I also carefully look at the explanation of the results and whether the conclusions the authors draw are justified and connected with the broader argument made in the paper. In academia, peer review is used to inform in decisions related to faculty advancement and tenure.
Short reviews translate into strong recommendations and vice versa. It should also come from a reputable source or expert in the field. 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.
Scholarly peer review Scholarly peer review also known as refereeing is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journalconference proceedings or as a book.
I also think it is our duty as researchers to write good reviews. 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.
It will help you make the right decision. I should also have a good idea of the hypothesis and context within the first few pages, and it matters whether the hypothesis makes sense or is interesting. 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.
It is also very important that the authors guide you through the whole article and explain every table, every figure, and every scheme.
Importance of literature review in academic research paper Argyle communication cycle evaluation essay francis bacon essays 50 of studies summary best article on save environment essay fille du regiment dessay florez band pcc nursing proctored essay cummer museum essay.
Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book.
The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and. The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts.
In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute.
A literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in. A research paper is based on original research.
The kind of research may vary depending on your field or the topic (experiments, survey, interview, questionnaire, etc.), but authors need to collect and analyze raw data and conduct an original study. The research paper will be based on the analysis and interpretation of this data.Review of an academic research paper