Session 19 CRT - Reviewing Papers What Reviewers Look For...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Reviewing Papers: What Reviewers Look For Reviewers Session 19 C507 Scientific Writing Are Referees really Necessary? Are Some look at reviewers (referees) solely Some as biased adversaries whose objectives are solely to reject, delay or scoop all papers submitted to them papers Some feel that science would do quite well Some without reviewers at all, that we could publish all readable papers without delay and let the community at large sort the bad from good from Are Referees really Necessary? Are For those that argue against the review For process and for unrestricted access, they fail to distinguish between the formal and informal systems of communication in science science Price Says Price “The scientist is more frequently than not The passionate, biased, illogical, resistant to proof and to change, and beset by other similar human failings. It is, today, better to let this show and be understood than to pretend that it is not there.” pretend An Overlooked Function An One function of the peer review system One that is often overlooked is its indirect influence on the initial preparation of a paper paper Established scientists write their papers Established with a critical sense that anticipates peer reviewer questions reviewer Does the System Work? Does The answer to this question seems to be a The resounding “Yes.” resounding All editors, and most authors will affirm All that there is hardly a paper published that has not been improved, often substantially, by the reviewers substantially, These same editors will also attest that These examples of intentional delay, biased reporting or unethical behavior is rare reporting The Different Processes of Peer Review Review Evaluations of papers for publication Assessment of grant proposals Recommendations for positions or tenure Two Kinds of Consensus Two There are times when referees will There disagree about the suitability of a paper for publication, and so will the journal editor publication, Not infrequently, a paper rejected by one Not journal is accepted by another journal These disagreements do not indicate a These breakdown of the referee system; rather, they arise from differing views of two kinds of consensus of Consensus #1 Consensus First, there is the consensus that develops First, within an editorial board on what constitutes an acceptable paper for that journal journal Consensus #2 Consensus The second consensus that enters into the The evaluation of a scientific paper is the one that develops within a field of research that In some areas of science the fundamental In algorithms and paradigms are well established, tested, verified and accepted established, Possible Solutions Possible You could publish the paper and include You the reviewer’s comments as a comment or addendum to the paper addendum Or you could consider open review- here, Or you seek comments from several referees to be published concurrently with the paper paper Does Reviewer Anonymity Matter? Does This remains controversial But, by and large, reviewers really do try But, their best to offer useful comments to authors. Reviewers need to report with candor and Reviewers honesty; keep them anonymous is often believed to help do just that believed Blind Review Blind We also remove the author’s name from a We paper sent out for review paper This is supposed to reduce bias But this really does not work too well, just But in terms of keeping identity confidential; we have too small a population of researchers in our profession researchers Reviewers Reviewers In general, journals send papers to at least In 2 reviewers, but may at times use more reviewers, Reviewers are selected because: They have expertise of use to the journal They support the goals and mission of the They journal journal General Questions Reviewers Need to Answer Need Does this paper report a specific, Does identifiable advance in knowledge? identifiable Has the work reported in this paper been Has published before? published Are the conclusions justified, soundly Are based and logically consistent? based General Questions Reviewers Need to Answer Need Are the procedures and methods Are sufficiently clear that the work could be repeated by anyone knowledgeable in the field? field? Are the references to previous work Are pertinent and complete? pertinent General Questions Reviewers Need to Answer Need Is the paper as concise as it could be, Is consistent with clarity? consistent Referees are not required to comment on Referees writing style. However, they are invited to suggest changes that would remove ambiguity or clarify meaning ambiguity General Questions Reviewers Need to Answer Need Are the figures and tables relevant and Are properly prepared? properly Are the title and abstract truly descriptive Are of the contents? of Ethics for Reviewers Ethics We remind reviewers that the paper under We consideration is a confidential document that should not be discusses or shown to others without the express permission of the editor without As the reviewer’s detailed report may be relayed As to the author as a guide for revising their paper, we request that you avoid harsh or abrasive statements (comments specifically to the editor should be sent as a separate written letter) should Ethics for Reviewers Ethics Your anonymity as a reviewer will be Your preserved and you are asked not to identify yourself to the authors without the permission of the editor permission The paper must be returned within a The specified period of time specified The JMPT The Let us say that a new paper is submitted Let to the JMPT to We acknowledge receipt of the paper on We the day it is received, and a letter that “accepts the paper for consideration to publish” is sent to the principal author publish” The JMPT The Then, we ready two copies to go out for Then, review review The paper is blinded Two reviewers, with expertise in the Two subject are and for whom we believe to have no bias, are selected have Appropriate forms are sent with the paper The JMPT The Reviewers then provide their critique They are asked to return their review They within 2 weeks. 10% might actually do so within The editor uses those reviews as a guide The to his or her decision to Most frequently, the paper is returned for Most revision revision The JMPT The On the review form, the reviewer can On check off a set of good points, bad points, and then offer a comment on publishability and/or recommendations for improvement and/or The JMPT The Good Points Original Timely Interesting to read Practical Information important to document Well suited to journal’s objectives Good research Good review of literature Well written/edited Other good points Bad Points Too preliminary Duplicates other published research- no new insight Not well suited to journal’s objectives Faulty research design Poorly supported by references Highly speculative Plagiarized material Not well written/edited Other bad points ...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online