Peer Review Process: Referee Report


Published on

Referee report after scrutiny of scientific manuscripts submitted to a journal

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Peer Review Process: Referee Report

  1. 1. Peer-Review Process – Part II Referee Report September 2010
  2. 2. <ul><li>Referee Report: Overall Aspects </li></ul><ul><li>Referee Report: Details </li></ul><ul><li>Referee Report: Final Verdict </li></ul><ul><li>Ethics </li></ul>Peer Review Process – Part II
  3. 3. Referee Report: Overall Aspects - I <ul><li>The referee report should present the informed opinion of the reviewer about the manuscript </li></ul><ul><li>The article under review, with title, author name/s and assigned manuscript number should be clearly identified </li></ul><ul><li>The report should be brief , without omitting important aspects/details </li></ul><ul><li>The report should take into account realistic limitations or constraints on the study performed </li></ul>
  4. 4. Referee Report: Overall Aspects - II <ul><li>The tone of criticism should be collegial </li></ul><ul><li>What to avoid: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal comments about the authors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disparaging statements about the work </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The viewpoint of the reviewer regarding the following aspects should be presented: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>General quality of the research work </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Originality, importance, relevance and timeliness </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. <ul><li>Referee Report: Overall Aspects </li></ul><ul><li>Referee Report: Details </li></ul><ul><li>Referee Report: Final Verdict </li></ul><ul><li>Ethics </li></ul>Peer Review Process – Part II
  6. 6. Referee Report: Details - I <ul><li>D etailed critique of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Measurement and analysis techniques </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limitations of the research design </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Opinions about the conclusions of the authors should be offered: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Supported by facts or logical arguments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Both in case of agreement or disagreement </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Referee Report: Details - II <ul><li>Relevant passages from the article may be presented inside quotes, and opinions or comments thereof presented along side </li></ul><ul><li>All criticisms/suggestions for improvement may be listed, including language errors and non-conformity with journal guidelines </li></ul><ul><li>Description of possible future work which can further clarify the results may be outlined, but barring exceptional cases, this should not be made a prerequisite for publication </li></ul>
  8. 8. <ul><li>Referee Report: Overall Aspects </li></ul><ul><li>Referee Report: Details </li></ul><ul><li>Referee Report: Final Verdict </li></ul><ul><li>Ethics </li></ul>Peer Review Process – Part II
  9. 9. Referee Report: Final Verdict - I <ul><li>R ank the quality of research in comparison to other similar work </li></ul><ul><li>Assess the specific/broad impact on the field </li></ul><ul><li>Discuss the suitability of hypotheses and techniques </li></ul><ul><li>Make a judgment about the validity of the conclusions </li></ul><ul><li>Comment on the presentation and language as appropriate </li></ul>
  10. 10. Referee Report: Final Verdict - II <ul><li>Recommendations to journal editor ( options for peer reviewer ) </li></ul><ul><li>Publication without any revisions </li></ul><ul><li>Publish after suggested changes are implemented </li></ul><ul><li>Second pass at review after changes are made </li></ul><ul><li>Recommend that the article is unsuitable for publication </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Due to deficiencies in research or presentation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Due to non-conformity with journal scope or requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Suggest a different journal, more appropriate for the article </li></ul>
  11. 11. <ul><li>Referee Report: Overall Aspects </li></ul><ul><li>Referee Report: Details </li></ul><ul><li>Referee Report: Final Verdict </li></ul><ul><li>Ethics </li></ul>Peer Review Process – Part II
  12. 12. Ethics <ul><li>The reviewer is expected to abide by certain ethical obligations : </li></ul><ul><li>Ensuring confidentiality about the article and review process </li></ul><ul><li>Excusing him/herself from the review process if there is a conflict of interest e.g . if one or more of the co-authors are either collaborators or competitors </li></ul><ul><li>Processing the review and generating the report in a timely manner </li></ul>
  13. 13. About Crimson <ul><li>Enago ™ is the leading editing and publication service provider for scientific </li></ul><ul><li>manuscripts in Japan, and has a total of over 10000 clients in many countries. </li></ul><ul><li>Ulatus™ provides Japanese to English translation services in numerous </li></ul><ul><li>subject areas for almost every document type. </li></ul><ul><li>Voxtab™ is the transcription arm of our business and provides accurate and </li></ul><ul><li>reliable transcriptions, with fast turnaround times. </li></ul>英文编辑 · 英文校对 http:// / 英文編修‧論文修改 http:// / 英語テープ起こしボックスブ http:// / 日英・英日翻訳ユレイタス http:// / 英文校正エナゴ http:// / English Transcription Services http:// / English Translation Services http:// / English Editing Services http:// /