Paper reviews

Enter your login details below. If you do not already have an account you will need to register here. Once production of your article has started, you can track the status of your article via Track Your Accepted Article. Over the past seven years, I have reviewed more than scientific papers in my field. Second, you know what others do in research, hence, the review broadens your scope.

Tips and advice when you review a scientific paper

A good peer review requires disciplinary expertise, a keen and critical eye, and a diplomatic and constructive approach. As junior scientists develop their expertise and make names for themselves, they are increasingly likely to receive invitations to review research manuscripts. 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. I am very open-minded when it comes to accepting invitations to review. 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. I'm more prone to agree to do a review if it involves a system or method in which I have a particular expertise.

And I'm not going to take on a paper to review unless I have the time. 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. I've heard from some reviewers that they're more likely to accept an invitation to review from a more prestigious journal and don't feel as bad about rejecting invitations from more specialized journals.

That makes things a lot harder for editors of the less prestigious journals, and that's why I am more inclined to take on reviews from them. If I've never heard of the authors, and particularly if they're from a less developed nation, then I'm also more likely to accept the invitation.

I do this because editors might have a harder time landing reviewers for these papers too, and because people who aren't deeply connected into our research community also deserve quality feedback. 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 usually consider first the relevance to my own expertise. 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.

Walsh , professor of public policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. 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? I subconsciously follow a checklist. 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. I want statements of fact, not opinion or speculation, backed up by data. Most journals don't have special instructions, so I just read the paper, usually starting with the Abstract, looking at the figures, and then reading the paper in a linear fashion.

There are a few aspects that I make sure to address, though I cover a lot more ground as well. First, I consider how the question being addressed fits into the current status of our knowledge. Second, I ponder how well the work that was conducted actually addresses the central question posed in the paper. In my field, authors are under pressure to broadly sell their work, and it's my job as a reviewer to address the validity of such claims.

Third, I make sure that the design of the methods and analyses are appropriate. First, I read a printed version to get an overall impression. What is the paper about? How is it structured? I also pay attention to the schemes and figures; if they are well designed and organized, then in most cases the entire paper has also been carefully thought out. When diving in deeper, first I try to assess whether all the important papers are cited in the references, as that also often correlates with the quality of the manuscript itself.

Then, right in the Introduction, you can often recognize whether the authors considered the full context of their topic. It is also very important that the authors guide you through the whole article and explain every table, every figure, and every scheme. As I go along, I use a highlighter and other pens, so the manuscript is usually colorful after I read it. Besides that, I make notes on an extra sheet. I first familiarize myself with the manuscript and read relevant snippets of the literature to make sure that the manuscript is coherent with the larger scientific domain.

Then I scrutinize it section by section, noting if there are any missing links in the story and if certain points are under- or overrepresented. I print out the paper, as I find it easier to make comments on the printed pages than on an electronic reader.

At this first stage, I try to be as open-minded as I can. Does the theoretical argument make sense? Does it contribute to our knowledge, or is it old wine in new bottles?

Is there an angle the authors have overlooked? This often requires doing some background reading, sometimes including some of the cited literature, about the theory presented in the manuscript. I then delve into the Methods and Results sections. Are the methods suitable to investigate the research question and test the hypotheses? Would there have been a better way to test these hypotheses or to analyze these results?

Is the statistical analysis sound and justified? Could I replicate the results using the information in the Methods and the description of the analysis? I even selectively check individual numbers to see whether they are statistically plausible. I also carefully look at the explanation of the results and whether the conclusions the authors draw are justified and connected with the broader argument made in the paper.

If there are any aspects of the manuscript that I am not familiar with, I try to read up on those topics or consult other colleagues. I spend a fair amount of time looking at the figures. 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.

Conclusions that are overstated or out of sync with the findings will adversely impact my review and recommendations. I generally read on the computer and start with the Abstract to get an initial impression. Then I read the paper as a whole, thoroughly and from beginning to end, taking notes as I read.

For me, the first question is this: Is the research sound? And secondly, how can it be improved? Basically, I am looking to see if the research question is well motivated; if the data are sound; if the analyses are technically correct; and, most importantly, if the findings support the claims made in the paper.

The main aspects I consider are the novelty of the article and its impact on the field. I always ask myself what makes this paper relevant and what new advance or contribution the paper represents. Then I follow a routine that will help me evaluate this. I also consider whether the article contains a good Introduction and description of the state of the art, as that indirectly shows whether the authors have a good knowledge of the field.

Second, I pay attention to the results and whether they have been compared with other similar published studies. Third, I consider whether the results or the proposed methodology have some potential broader applicability or relevance, because in my opinion this is important.

Finally, I evaluate whether the methodology used is appropriate. If the authors have presented a new tool or software, I will test it in detail. Using a copy of the manuscript that I first marked up with any questions that I had, I write a brief summary of what the paper is about and what I feel about its solidity. 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.

Finally comes a list of really minor stuff, which I try to keep to a minimum. If I feel there is some good material in the paper but it needs a lot of work, I will write a pretty long and specific review pointing out what the authors need to do.

If the paper has horrendous difficulties or a confused concept, I will specify that but will not do a lot of work to try to suggest fixes for every flaw.

For Peer Review Week, researchers from across the spectrum offer advice and insights about how to review research manuscripts. Review Papers: these are critical and comprehensive reviews that provide new insights or interpretation of a subject through thorough and systematic evaluation of.

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. Will a review paper be published by a good journal?

The proposed LP relaxation consists of the classical local polytope relaxation of the underlying pairwise graphical model plus the linear uniqueness constraints corresponding to the matching.

Peer review is widely viewed as an essential step for ensuring scientific quality of a work and is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing. On the other hand, the actors involved in the publishing process are often driven by incentives which may, and increasingly do, undermine the quality of published work, especially in the presence of unethical conduits.

How to review a paper

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. 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'.

Over 2,000,000 researchers

Paper Reviews. Written paper reviews are a way to ensure you do the readings, and serve as the starting seed for class discussion. Anything you write in your review is fair game for me to bring up in class, so write as though all of your fellow students can see your reviews. Reviews are due by PM please see the schedule for submission dates. You are welcome to meet in small groups to discuss papers, but each student must submit his or her own review. Though you are not required to submit reviews for all the papers, you are still required to read the papers for class discussions. In terms of selecting papers for reviews, you must select one from a set of papers to be discussed for the next one week from due date. There is no late policy for reading assignments. Review Guidelines. Bill Griswold , a first-rate software engineering researcher, has some excellent advice on how to read an engineering research paper.

A good peer review requires disciplinary expertise, a keen and critical eye, and a diplomatic and constructive approach.

Fairygodboss provides free job reviews for women, by women. Find jobs Company reviews Find salaries. Upload your resume. Sign in.

Review article

Forgot your password? Don't have an account? Sign up here. Already have an account? Log in here. By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango. Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password. We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your account. Just leave us a message here and we will work on getting you verified. Fast and frenetic, The Paper captures the energy of the newsroom thanks to its cast and director on first-rate form. Rate this movie. Oof, that was Rotten. Meh, it passed the time. So Fresh: Absolute Must See! You're almost there!

Planning to Write

A review article is an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic. Review articles are sometimes also called survey articles or, in news publishing, overview articles. Academic publications that specialize in review articles are known as review journals. Review articles in academic journals analyze or discuss research previously published by others, rather than reporting new experimental results. When reading individual articles, readers could miss features that are apparent to an expert clinician-researcher. Readers benefit from the expert's explanation and assessment of the validity and applicability of individual studies. Review articles come in the form of literature reviews and, more specifically, systematic reviews ; both are a form of secondary literature.