• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Rejection of Scientific Papers - Part II
 

Rejection of Scientific Papers - Part II

on

  • 2,328 views

Peer review concerns in evaluating scientific manuscripts and ways to avoid rejection

Peer review concerns in evaluating scientific manuscripts and ways to avoid rejection

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,328
Views on SlideShare
1,932
Embed Views
396

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
0
Comments
0

5 Embeds 396

http://www.enago.com 389
http://www.linkedin.com 3
http://localhost 2
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 1
https://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Rejection of Scientific Papers - Part II Rejection of Scientific Papers - Part II Presentation Transcript

    • Manuscript Rejection – Part II Peer Review Concerns and Avoiding Rejection October 2010
      • Peer-Review Concerns
      • Avoiding Rejection
      Manuscript Rejection – Part II
    • Peer Review Concerns - I
      • It is important to keep in mind that the peer reviewer (referee) is a distinguished and recognized scholar, and not an adversary !
      • A referee will typically attempt to address the following concerns:
      • Whether the research or applications thereof are original , and ensuring that plagiarism is not involved
      • If the results or conclusions advance knowledge or understanding
      • The quality, content and style of the article are suitable given the scope and guidelines of the journal
    • Peer Review Concerns - II
      • The paper has a solid theoretical and/or experimental foundation
      • No flaws are evident in:
        • Concept ual basis
        • Experimental methods
        • Analysis techniques
        • Derived conclusions
      • Ample details about new techniques or results are provided, and these appear to be logically sound and reproducible
    • Peer Review Concerns - III
      • The description of the research is clear , concise and free of inconsistencies
      • The analysis and subsequent interpretation of the data are persuasive, in terms of proving the proposed hypotheses , beyond doubt
      • All claims are substantiated with ample evidence , and the reader is not misled, either by design or accident and fabrication or selective reporting of data is not apparent
      • Sufficient and appropriate references are provided indicating
        • Ample knowledge on the part of the author
        • Adequate literature survey
      • Peer-Review Concerns
      • Avoiding Rejection
      Manuscript Rejection – Part II
    • Avoiding Rejection - I
      • The article should not be found to be deficient in one or more of the following:
      • Originality
        • Concepts or results should be novel
        • Work should not be derived from or duplicate existing research
        • Theoretical framework and assumptions should be well established and correlated with the data
      • Methodology
        • Proven techniques should be correctly employed
        • Unsuitable methods should not be used
        • New approaches should be adequately or convincingly justified
    • Avoiding Rejection - II
      • Quality
        • Equipment/samples of sufficient quality should be used
        • Data should be accurately recorded
        • Systematic and statistical errors should be appropriately treated
        • Reproducibility of the experiments/calculations should not be suspect
      • Relevance/Significance
        • Research should be relevant for the specific sub-field or in terms of broad appeal
        • It should lead to a sufficient advancement of the field
    • Avoiding Rejection - III
      • There are some proactive measures that an author can take to avoid rejection
      • Plan all facets of research project in advance after due consultation with peers
      • Apply existing techniques correctly and minimize errors of measurement
      • Results should be recorded and interpreted in a completely objective manner
      • All aspects of the research should be effectively communicated
      • Professional editing help should be sought if language or presentation aspects require improvement
      • The appropriate journal should be chosen for publication
    • About Crimson
      • Enago ™ is the leading editing and publication service provider for scientific
      • manuscripts in Japan, and has a total of over 10000 clients in many countries.
      • Ulatus™ provides Japanese to English translation services in numerous
      • subject areas for almost every document type.
      • Voxtab™ is the transcription arm of our business and provides accurate and
      • reliable transcriptions, with fast turnaround times.
      英文编辑 · 英文校对 http:// www.enago.cn / 英文編修‧論文修改 http:// www.enago.tw / 英語テープ起こしボックスブ http:// www.voxtab.jp / 日英・英日翻訳ユレイタス http:// www.ulatus.jp / 英文校正エナゴ http:// www.enago.jp / English Transcription Services http:// www.voxtab.com / English Translation Services http:// www.ulatus.com / English Editing Services http:// www.enago.com /