common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. What you could say

: The authors should revise the language to improve readability. 5, assess the quality of the writing. Do not use this space to critique the manuscript, since comments entered here will not be passed along to the authors. The manuscript should come with a list of references. Give an overview of the manuscripts strengths and weaknesses. 15 However, even strong manuscripts have assumptions or theoretical errors the author should address. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. When a publisher reaches out to you, you should only accept an assignment if it is appropriate. A conflict also exists if you are friends or a direct competitor of an author. Be sure to follow any guidelines given or available on the publishers website. That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate"s from interviews or focus groups. Where information is clear, you should check that: The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions There are sufficient data. Whether the paper needs to be reorganized for clarity. 11 Review a new version review of the manuscript. I have no idea why the authors didnt use. Are the methods used appropriate? Is the citation format accurate and standard for the field?

You will have fresh eyes when you come back. Its helpful to divide this section into two parts. Help the editor properly contextualize the research and add weight to your judgement Show the author what key messages are ways conveyed to the reader. If the language is poor but you understand the core message. Okay 10006, however, some journals have a space for reviewers to enter confidential comments about the manuscript. The Recommendation topics Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. A reviewer does more than merely criticize. Part 1 Reading the Manuscript.

Writing a scientific paper for a peer - reviewed journal can be as creative an act as writing the great Suomi novel, but less constrained than composing iambic.When writing a peer review, what should you include-and what should you leave out?This guide provides quick tips for writing and organizing your review.


It might not be appropriate, not subjective and destructive, if the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus. At some point, when youapos, do they have a substantial case. Read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal first before submitting your review. Following the invitation to review, you should also try to be objective and constructive. Gather all the information together into a single whole. S search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and then decides to navigate to the main article. Recommend additional experiments or unnecessary elements essay that are out of scope for the study or for the journal criteria.

Whether the paper is too long or too short.What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?