A conclusion drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscriptįor analytical papers examine the sampling report, which is mandated in time-dependent studies.
Missing processes known to be influential on the area of reported research. The following cases are considered major flaws and should be flagged: If the manuscript you are reviewing is reporting an experiment, check the methods section first. Below we offer some tips about handling specific parts of the paper. You might consider spot checking major issues by choosing which section to read first. In any case, your first task is to read the article. Comment on the author's interpretation of the results. Offer comments on the writing, organization, tables, and figures of the manuscript. Specifically, determine whether the references are relevant to the topic and cover both historical literature and more recent developments. Comment on the author's representation of the most relevant recent advances in the field. Discuss the importance of the topic/scope of the review. If the journal in question does not require you to respond to a list of specific questions, you might find it useful to consider these questions and the below generic points when you are preparing your review report. Also please make sure to reply to the questions in sufficient detail when you are submitting your report in Editorial Manager, to enable the author to most effectively improve the manuscript based on your comments. In any review, please keep the author (instead of the editor) in mind when preparing your replies as your comments will likely be included in the decision letter sent to the author. You can find an overview of the core questions here (note that journals may also employ additional journal-specific questions). These questions address different aspects of the manuscript, such as the quality of the data analysis, reproducibility, and the overall clarity of the manuscript. REVIEW OF KOTOBEE AUTHOR BASIC PLAN 1.3.12 SERIES
Many of our journals employ “structured peer review” whereby you will receive a series of questions to make it easier for you to convey recommendations for improvement in a structured manner.
0 kommentar(er)
