Basically, I am looking to see if the research question is well motivated; if the data are sound; if the analyses are technically correct; and, most importantly, if the findings support the claims made in the paper.
I always write my reviews as though I am talking to the scientists in person. Note that superfluous detail and otherwise obvious information has been deleted while important missing information was added. 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.
What do you consider when deciding whether to accept an invitation to review a paper? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 52 7 An inoculating loop was used to transfer culture to the agar surface.
On the other hand, with the Internet and all my PDFs in front of me, I tended to generate sentences that were very dense with information but not necessarily closely related to each other — and not always pertinent to the specific scientific narratives I was attempting to compose.
Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous work? Describe the procedures for your study in sufficient detail that other scientists could repeat your work to verify your findings. Instead, a young scientist may learn how to review a paper under the guidance of his or her mentor, through journal clubs, or simply through trial and error.
Knowing that I work better when I focus on one project at a time, I spent the next two months carrying out all of my regular lab work while only pondering the review article and skimming the literature when I had time. Do not interpret the data here.
Avoid repetitive paragraph structures. In genetics studies include the strains or genetic stocks used. Seedlings or mature plants?
Referees are expected to alert the journal editor to any problems they identify, and make recommendations as to whether a paper should be accepted, returned to the authors for revisions, or rejected.
If I feel there is some good material in the paper but it needs a lot of work, I will write a pretty long and specific review pointing out what the authors need to do. However, if the mechanism being tested does not really provide new knowledge, or if the method and study design are of insufficient quality, then my hopes for a manuscript are rather low.
Photo courtesy of Matthew Perry. Make sure to get permission to reproduce any figures in your review. 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.
I usually write rather lengthy reviews at the first round of the revision process, and these tend to get shorter as the manuscript then improves in quality. At this first stage, I try to be as open-minded as I can.
Yes, I sometimes wrote things that were wrong or at least imperfect when constructing a section from memory. When I undertook the task of writing a scientific literature review article last year, I had hoped that a Google search would reveal a handful of how-to pages thoughtfully created by veterans of this particular writing process.
Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors?Tips for writing your first scientific literature review article BY Emily Crawford My adviser is a busy guy, with a lot of papers and grants to work on, so I knew that by “co-author” he meant that I would be the main researcher and writer, getting mostly broad, guiding suggestions from him.
and not always pertinent to the specific. Peer review is at the heart of the scientific method. Its philosophy is based on the idea that one’s research must survive the scrutiny of experts before it is presented to the larger scientific community as worthy of serious consideration. Remember that reviewing is a place where the implicit hierarchy of academia should not apply, ever.
10 tips for reviewing scientific manuscripts – and 5 red flags; 10 tips for reviewing scientific manuscripts – and 5 red flags We are fortunate to be able to feature Dr.
Alpert’s writing on Elsevier Connect.
Reply Dr. Nuttapong Boonthep December 7, at am. Nice tips. Good recommendation. Reply. Scientific writing is an important skill enabling effective disseminating of medical knowledge, clear communication and obtaining grant funding.
This course seeks to improve skills in scientific writing as it applies to publishing clear and effective scientific papers and reviewing clinical research.
Writing a Review Paper refine your skills at critically evaluating scientific papers in a historical context 2. become familiar with using reference databases in libraries An annotated bibliography is a list of peer-reviewed scientific papers that you are considering reviewing in your paper and a short summary (like an abstract) of.
This is because, if the discussion is insufficient, how can you objectively demonstrate the scientific significance of your work in the introduction? Write a Review the literature related to the topic and select some papers (about 30) that can be cited in your paper (These will be listed in the References.) I will give tips for writing.Download