Sample format, Page 1 of 2 Sample Format For Reviewing A Journal Article Reading and summarizing a research article in the behavioral or medical sciences can be overwhelming. Below is a simple model to guide students through this process. Authors’ last names (year) conducted a study about _____. The participants were/the setting was _____. (New paragraph) The findings were _____. Discussion Journal Peer Review Forms are the kinds of forms that are utilized by those people that need to assess the journals of their peers. Those who are in the same field of research and expertise as the one conducting the journal have the right to use these forms to see if all the information contained within is credible, well-researched, or not · A journal article review usually follows the APA style, which is in itself an exceptional mode of writing. Writing a journal article review in APA style requires a thorough reading of an article and then present our personal opinions on its subject matter
Step by Step Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript | Wiley
When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review, journal review format. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest. The structure of the review report varies between journals. Some follow an informal structure, while others have a more formal approach.
Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.
Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, journal review format, it's worth checking journal review format any journal-specific guidelines and requirements.
If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review. Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only. Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript.
If you don't, make a note now that you need to feedback on how to improve those sections. The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper. While you should read the whole paper, making the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on. If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.
If methodology is less of an issue, journal review format, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, journal review format, figures or images first.
Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues include:. If you find a major problem, journal review format, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence including citations.
After the initial read journal review format using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work.
If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts. This should state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It should:. After drafting these two paragraphs, journal review format, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected see the next section.
Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, journal review format read through. Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper.
This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author, journal review format. This could help them with future submissions.
A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection.
Once the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the article is publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication.
Of course, you may still decide to reject it following a second reading. The benchmark for acceptance is whether the manuscript journal review format a useful contribution to the knowledge base or understanding of the subject matter. It need not be fully complete research - it may be an interim paper. After all research is an incomplete, on-going project by its nature. The detailed read-through should take no more than an hour for the moderately experienced reviewer.
In other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution, journal review format. Now that you have completed your preparations, you're ready to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript. As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content.
Check the Language Not every submission is well written. Editors say, journal review format, " If a manuscript has many English language and editing issues, please do not try and fix journal review format. If it is too bad, note that in your review and it should be up to the authors to have the manuscript edited. If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the language is poor but you understand the core message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem:.
Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it's important to highlight these. Expect to suggest such amendments - it's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections, journal review format.
Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research. For example, it's impossible to argue that there is a conflict in current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old, journal review format. Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required.
This point is only valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques or to research in indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can only do this by referencing recent literature. Obviously, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.
Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes? It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, then the introduction needs improvement. These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome.
Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection. These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. Where methods are not detailed enough, it's usual to journal review format for the methods section to be revised.
This has journal review format data points to make sure the data are reliable. If there are journal review format data, it might be appropriate to recommend revision. You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments, journal review format.
If the research fails to reach relevant best practice standards, it's usual to recommend rejection. What's more, you don't then need to read any further. Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole.
Authors should describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there journal review format gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward. This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section.
The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, journal review format, just like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, journal review format, it's appropriate to ask for them journal review format be re-written.
If you find yourself looking at a piece of information from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical notation or image quality.
You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate but only if authors report on how the image has been edited e. by highlighting certain parts of an image. Where you feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.
Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the journal review format - and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations differently. You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference, journal review format. By journal review format you will have a deep understanding of the paper's content - and you may have some concerns about plagiarism, journal review format.
If you find - or already knew of - a very similar paper, journal review format, this may be because the author overlooked it in their own literature search.
Or it may be because it is very recent or published in a journal slightly outside their usual field. You may feel you can advise the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, so as to better differentiate it from similar research.
If so, you may ask the author to discuss their aims and results, or modify their conclusions, in light of the similar article. Of course, the research similarities may be so great that they render the work unoriginal and you have no choice but to recommend rejection. If you suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and ask for guidance. Editors are not out to police every paper, but when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it can be properly addressed ahead of publication.
If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, journal review format, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.
How to write a review paper? Learn from the Scratch. Know about benefits of a review.
, time: 6:46How to Write an Article Review: Full Guide with Examples | EssayPro
· A journal article review usually follows the APA style, which is in itself an exceptional mode of writing. Writing a journal article review in APA style requires a thorough reading of an article and then present our personal opinions on its subject matter · Reviewing newspaper articles is a common task Text for all documents, including the title page, must be double-spaced. Line spacing format for your document to ensure double spacing. It is very risky to copy statements on the Internet, or hire Sample format, Page 1 of 2 Sample Format For Reviewing A Journal Article Reading and summarizing a research article in the behavioral or medical sciences can be overwhelming. Below is a simple model to guide students through this process. Authors’ last names (year) conducted a study about _____. The participants were/the setting was _____. (New paragraph) The findings were _____. Discussion
No comments:
Post a Comment