Both the increase and the burden it imposes are widely recognized by thousands of parents and frontline professionals such as nurses and teachers. Yet some of the most prominent and powerful people in medicine, the media, and government deny it.
Search Share A good peer review requires disciplinary expertise, a keen and critical eye, and a diplomatic and constructive approach. Writing a good review requires expertise in the field, an intimate knowledge of research methods, a critical mind, the ability to give fair and constructive feedback, and sensitivity to the feelings of authors on the receiving end.
As a range of institutions and organizations around the world celebrate the essential role of peer review in upholding the quality of published research this week, Science Careers shares collected insights and advice about how to review papers from researchers across the spectrum.
The responses have been edited for clarity and brevity. What do you consider when deciding whether to accept an invitation to review a paper? I consider four factors: 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.
The only other factor I pay attention to is the scientific integrity of the journal. I would not want to review for a journal that does not offer an unbiased review process. For every manuscript of my own that I submit to a journal, I review at least a few papers, so I give back to the system plenty.
Finally, I am more inclined to review for journals with double-blind reviewing practices and journals that are run by academic societies, because those are both things that I want to support and encourage. 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.
Having said that, I tend to define my expertise fairly broadly for reviewing purposes.
I also consider the journal. 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.
Some journals have structured review criteria; others just ask for general and specific comments. Knowing this in advance helps save time later.
I almost never print out papers for review; I prefer to work with the electronic version. 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?
Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous work? Are the methods robust and well controlled? Are the reported analyses appropriate? I usually pay close attention to the use—and misuse—of frequentist statistics. Is the presentation of results clear and accessible?
To what extent does the Discussion place the findings in a wider context and achieve a balance between interpretation and useful speculation versus tedious waffling? First, is it well written? That usually becomes apparent by the Methods section.
Then, throughout, if what I am reading is only partly comprehensible, I do not spend a lot of energy trying to make sense of it, but in my review I will relay the ambiguities to the author.
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.
Then I read the Methods section very carefully. Mostly I am concerned with credibility: Could this methodology have answered their question?
Then I look at how convincing the results are and how careful the description is. Sloppiness anywhere makes me worry. The parts of the Discussion I focus on most are context and whether the authors make claims that overreach the data.
This is done all the time, to varying degrees.Writers and Editors, linking writers and editors to resources (including each other), markets, clients, and fans; maintained by Pat McNees, writer, personal and organizational historian, journalist, editor. The A1 suffix is typically seen as part of an application identification number or grant number and “A1” is often used to refer to a new, renewal, or revision application that is amended and resubmitted after the review of a previous application with the same project number.
Instead, a review paper synthesizes the results from several primary literature papers to produce a coherent argument about a topic or focused description of a field. Examples of scientific reviews can be found in. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle - Upton Sinclair really wrote The Jungle for the promotion of socialism, himself being a long-time socialist, but what really caught the attention of the public was the few pages of descriptions about the horrors of the meat-packing industry.
Psychiatrist Poul Thorsen, MD, who was the principal Danish investigator of the Danish series of studies commissioned by CDC, failed to obtain ethics committee approval for key CDC-sponsored epidemiological studies – as is required under US and Danish law. Speaking and Writing Strategies for the TOEFL iBT [Bruce Stirling] on ashio-midori.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
Increase your TOEFL iBT score by increasing your speaking and writing scores. How? By using the strategy called argument mapping. Why argument mapping? Because the TOEFL iBT speaking and writing sections are all argument-based tasks.