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. 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.
The graphs may be difficult to read. The Review Process Why understanding the review process is important. The significance of those contributions often depends on the perceived increment over previous work. It is always easy to find reasons to reject a paper. Consider the big picture. So I can only rate what priority I believe the paper should receive for publication today.
In addition to considering their overall quality, sometimes figures raise questions about the methods used to collect or analyze the data, or they fail to support a finding reported in the paper and warrant further clarification.
One should review the paper justly and entirely on its merit, even if it comes from a competing research group. You can write review research paper highlight the major issues that need to be dealt with by restructuring the review, summarizing the important issues upfront, or adding asterisks.
I also try to cite a specific factual reason or some evidence for any major criticisms or suggestions that I make. It is easy to identify problems with a paper. This helps you as a reviewer articulate the main contributions and conclusions of the paper for the purposes of your own evaluation.
I almost never print out papers for review; I prefer to work with the electronic version.
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?
Program committee chairs sometimes provide guidelines for writing reviews, such as these. Step 1 Focus on your specific topic. If the conclusion involves comparison to previous work, is the comparison performed in a controlled manner, using an equivalent or at least fair experimental setup?
A review is primarily for the benefit of the editor, to help them reach a decision about whether to publish or not, but I try to make my reviews useful for the authors as well. There are a few aspects that I make sure to address, though I cover a lot more ground as well.
As a reviewer, I try to identify whether a paper has a particular intellectual kernel that lies at the heart of the solution. Some journals have structured review criteria; others just ask for general and specific comments. I solved it by making the decision to review one journal article per week, putting a slot in my calendar for it, and promptly declining subsequent requests after the weekly slot is filled—or offering the next available opening to the editor.
Choose your language carefully, as it will help convey your message.
If the paper is one of the latter types, your first questions as a reviewer should concern whether the audience would benefit from the survey, tutorial, or proposal, and whether such a paper meets the standards for the conference. What is the paper about?
I want statements of fact, not opinion or speculation, backed up by data. At this first stage, I try to be as open-minded as I can. This kernel is often what separates an important research contribution from a simple matter of engineering. Parts of the paper may be difficult to understand.
It is imperative as a researcher to understand this process. Third, I make sure that the design of the methods and analyses are appropriate. How you react—and how you adapt your research or follow through on it after the acceptance or rejection —is far more important to long-term success.
Reviewing is a great learning experience and an exciting thing to do. In fact, there has been a fair amount of documentation that, as reviewers, we are often quite terrible at predicting the merits of a particular piece of submitted work: Then, right in the Introduction, you can often recognize whether the authors considered the full context of their topic.
Is the statistical analysis sound and justified? Is the presentation of results clear and accessible? If there are things I struggle with, I will suggest that the authors revise parts of their paper to make it more solid or broadly accessible. After I have finished reading the manuscript, I let it sink in for a day or so and then I try to decide which aspects really matter.What is the difference between a research paper and a review paper?
This is my first attempt at writing a scientific paper and I am thinking of writing a review article. I want to know what is the exact difference between a research paper and a review paper.
Dec 08, · How to Write an Article Review. An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often 89%().
Whether you end up reviewing a lot of papers as a Ph.D. student, your research will definitely be subject to the paper review process. It is imperative as a researcher to understand this process. It is imperative as a researcher to understand this process. International Journal of Science and ResearchLow Cost · Genuine · Quick Response · Fast PublicationService catalog: Research Paper, Proposal, Survey.
However, a literature review has its own structure that is fundamentally different from a generic research paper. While a research paper traditionally involves the development of a new or original thought based on existing research, a literature review is essentially an enhanced description of existing literature.
The emphasis of a review paper is interpreting the primary literature on the subject. You need to read several original research articles on the same topic and make your own conclusions about the meanings of those papers.Download