The document provides guidance on how to conduct peer reviews of academic papers. It discusses what peer review is, how the process works, the roles and responsibilities of peer reviewers, factors to consider when deciding whether to accept a review invitation, questions reviewers should ask, criteria to focus on during reviews, best practices, and how to make decisions on manuscripts. The document aims to help new reviewers understand peer review and provide thoughtful, constructive feedback to improve papers.
When publishing research, one needs to be aware of all such actions that are unethical and hence, must be avoided. This presentation gives an overview of the topic.
How to write a scientific paper for publicationAnisur Rahman
I am Dr Md Anisur Rahman Anjum passed MBBS from Dhaka Medical College in 1987. Diploma in Ophthalmology (DO) from the then IPGM&R (now it is Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University BSMMU) in 1993. Felllowship in Ophthalmology FCPS from Bangladesh College of Physician and surgeon in 1997. Now I am working as associate professor in General Ophthalmology in National Institute of Ophthalmology Dhaka Bangladesh which is the tertiary centre in eye care in Bangladesh.
When I was secretary of Bangladesh Academy in 2011-2012. During my tenure I had pulblished four academic journal. The ISSN of the journal is 1818-9423. I have seen that the format of original article was not maintained. though there was "GENERAL INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS" but many of the author did not follow that guideline. From that time I am trying to build up "HOW TO WRITE THE SCIENTIFIC MANUSCRIPT" among my students, colleague and senior fellows. and do two workshop about this topic.
I am hopeful if any of you write a scientific manuscript according to this format with correct statistics power and language it will be no longer rejected.
When publishing research, one needs to be aware of all such actions that are unethical and hence, must be avoided. This presentation gives an overview of the topic.
How to write a scientific paper for publicationAnisur Rahman
I am Dr Md Anisur Rahman Anjum passed MBBS from Dhaka Medical College in 1987. Diploma in Ophthalmology (DO) from the then IPGM&R (now it is Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University BSMMU) in 1993. Felllowship in Ophthalmology FCPS from Bangladesh College of Physician and surgeon in 1997. Now I am working as associate professor in General Ophthalmology in National Institute of Ophthalmology Dhaka Bangladesh which is the tertiary centre in eye care in Bangladesh.
When I was secretary of Bangladesh Academy in 2011-2012. During my tenure I had pulblished four academic journal. The ISSN of the journal is 1818-9423. I have seen that the format of original article was not maintained. though there was "GENERAL INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS" but many of the author did not follow that guideline. From that time I am trying to build up "HOW TO WRITE THE SCIENTIFIC MANUSCRIPT" among my students, colleague and senior fellows. and do two workshop about this topic.
I am hopeful if any of you write a scientific manuscript according to this format with correct statistics power and language it will be no longer rejected.
This presentation discusses the following topics:
What is a Survey Paper?
Aim of the Survey Paper
Research Paper vs. Survey Paper
Need for Survey paper
Components of a Survey paper
How to write a Survey Paper
Structure of a Survey Paper
The latest version of this presentation can be found here: https://www.slideshare.net/xqin74/how-to-write-research-papers-version-50/edit?src=slideview
How to Use Bibliometric Study for Writing a Paper: A Starter GuideNader Ale Ebrahim
Bibliometric analysis is an essential statistical tool to map the state of the art in a given area of scientific knowledge. Bibliometric is one family of measures that uses a variety of approaches for counting publication, citation, co-citation, bibliographic coupling, keyword co-occurrence, and co-authorship networks. Bibliometric methods involve the use of several tools that can help researchers to identify a relevant and current research problem. Bibliometric paper can be written before writing a literature review article and at the introduction section of any research papers. Researcher who develops a research project based on bibliometric analysis has the possibility of presenting the objectives and methods of his work clearly and concisely. In this workshop, you will learn “How to Use Bibliometric Study for Writing a Paper”.
Scientific integrity calls for some basic originality. Plagiarism can destroy this original creativity and ideation. This presentation defines plagiarism (stealing from others' works) and some of the creative and systematic remedies.
This session offers insights into the reviewing process associated with academic journals, which will help you in the roles of both reviewer and author. It will offer advice and reflection on when to accept an invitation to review, and on the benefits and practicalities of the process.
This presentation discusses the following topics:
What is a Survey Paper?
Aim of the Survey Paper
Research Paper vs. Survey Paper
Need for Survey paper
Components of a Survey paper
How to write a Survey Paper
Structure of a Survey Paper
The latest version of this presentation can be found here: https://www.slideshare.net/xqin74/how-to-write-research-papers-version-50/edit?src=slideview
How to Use Bibliometric Study for Writing a Paper: A Starter GuideNader Ale Ebrahim
Bibliometric analysis is an essential statistical tool to map the state of the art in a given area of scientific knowledge. Bibliometric is one family of measures that uses a variety of approaches for counting publication, citation, co-citation, bibliographic coupling, keyword co-occurrence, and co-authorship networks. Bibliometric methods involve the use of several tools that can help researchers to identify a relevant and current research problem. Bibliometric paper can be written before writing a literature review article and at the introduction section of any research papers. Researcher who develops a research project based on bibliometric analysis has the possibility of presenting the objectives and methods of his work clearly and concisely. In this workshop, you will learn “How to Use Bibliometric Study for Writing a Paper”.
Scientific integrity calls for some basic originality. Plagiarism can destroy this original creativity and ideation. This presentation defines plagiarism (stealing from others' works) and some of the creative and systematic remedies.
This session offers insights into the reviewing process associated with academic journals, which will help you in the roles of both reviewer and author. It will offer advice and reflection on when to accept an invitation to review, and on the benefits and practicalities of the process.
Literature Review- Dr Ryan Thomas WilliamsRyan Williams
A review of the previous experiments and investigations done within our chosen topic area.
Shows how your chosen topic fits with the research that has gone before and puts this into context.
‘A researcher cannot perform significant research without first understanding the literature in the field’ (Boote and Beile, 2005: 3)
How to write an awesome A+ essay for more information, download sample essays visit here http://www.transtutors.com/homework-help/writing/essay-writing.aspx
Peer review process of academic publications is introduced and a sample given for how this is carried out within an academic teaching module. Guidance given on best ways to carry out a peer review.
Workshop -- How to successfully write a scientific paper?KnihovnaUTB
Přednášející: Katarzyna Gaca-Zając, PhD Eng. | Elsevier
***********
Během školení se jeho účastníci naučí úspěšně napsat kvalitní vědecký článek, který bude korespondovat s vědeckou komunitou a umožní jeho autorům získat uznání. Představeny budou osvědčené postupy, které jsou založeny na zkušenostech výzkumných pracovníků, redaktorů a čtenářů. Školení je určeno především začínajícím výzkumným pracovníkům, vítáni jsou ale všichni vědečtí pracovníci a akademici.
**********
During this training the attendees will learn how to successfully write a good quality research paper, which will resonate well with the scientific community and will allow them to gain recognition. A summary of the best practices in writing will be presented and these are based on experience of researchers, editors and readers. The training is addressed primarily to young researchers, although senior academics are also welcome to attend.
Checklist for Global Revision1 Purpose and Audience .docxchristinemaritza
Checklist for Global Revision1
Purpose and Audience
• Does the plan accomplish its purpose – to analyze a reading, develop a claim, and
support that claim with evidence from the selected reading?
• Is the plan appropriate for its audience? Does it account for the audience’s
knowledge of the subject, level of interest in the subject, and possible attitudes
toward the subject?
Focus
• Is your claim clear? Do you show how you derived the claim from your selected
reading?
• Do you identify the key points you'll use to support your claim? Have you
explained the rationale for choosing each point?
Organization and Paragraphing
• Are there enough organizational cues for readers, like topic sentences?
• Are ideas presented in a logical order?
• Are any paragraphs too long or too short for easy reading?
Content
• Is the evidence I've chosen relevant and persuasive?
• Which ideas need further development?
• Are the parts proportioned sensibly? Do major ideas receive enough attention?
• Where might material be deleted?
Point of View
• Is the draft free of distracting shifts in point of view (from I to you, for example,
or from it to they)?
• Is the dominant point of view – I, we, you, he, she, it, one, or they – appropriate
for your purpose and audience?
***
“When you revise sentences, you focus on effectiveness; when you edit, you check for
correctness. Proofreading is a slow and careful reading in search of typos and other
obvious mistakes” (Hacker 29).
1 Hacker, Diana. Rules for Writers 6th Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008.
Paragraph Level Revision
“A paragraph should be unified around a main point. The main point should be clear to
readers, and all sentences in the paragraph should relate to it” (Hacker 40).
• State the main point in a topic sentence – the topic sentence should act as a
signpost pointing in two directions: backward toward the thesis of the essay and
forward toward the body of the paragraph.
• Stick to the point – if a sentence does not support the topic sentence it destroys the
unity of the paragraph
• Develop the main point – a series of brief paragraphs suggests inadequate
development
• Make paragraphs coherent – sentences and paragraphs should flow from one to
another without discernible bumps, gaps, or shifts. Coherence can be improved by
strengthening the ties between old information and new.
o Link ideas clearly
o Repeat key words
o Use parallel structures
o Maintain consistency
o Provide transitions
• If necessary, adjust paragraph length – aim for paragraphs between 100-200
words
Sentence Level Revision
In order to revise sentences without “reading over” the passages you’ve become familiar
with, try starting with the last sentence in your essay and read each sentence from end to
beginning, checking each sentence for clarity, effectiveness, and c ...
General guidelines for writing reaction papers (Read this docume.docxgilbertkpeters11344
General guidelines for writing reaction papers
(Read this document fully! It’s 5 pages and contains important information):
Reaction papers are thought papers where you critique an article. As you read the assigned articles, point out 1) at least one interesting fact that you learned from the introduction, 2) study’s strengths, 3) the limitations of their research design (for example, the way they defined or measured their variables, the measures’ reliability/validity, their data collection technique [e.g., self-report, lab visits, direct observation]), 4) implications of their findings (so what do they findings mean in real world!. In your implications section you must relate the study’s findings to real life, and give it some context to make it relevant for lay people), 5) future direction ideas (what would you want to test next to build up on the findings of this research, and/or to address its shortcomings).
These are some questions to have in mind as you read the article:
· Did they account for confounding factors?
· What other factors could explain their findings?
· Were the findings substantial? Who will benefit from these?
· What were some of the considerations or little things that the researchers took into account that strengthened their design?
· If you were to do subsequent investigations, what next steps would you take?
· Also, if the article posed questions in your mind, mention the questions and take a stab at giving answers too!
Show me that you’ve thought the article thorough. I evaluate your reaction papers based on thedepth of your thoughts and how sophisticated and well explained your arguments comments are.
SUPER IMPORTANT NOTE regarding LIMITATIONS:
When pointing out the limitations, EXPLAIN how addressing the limitation could mean getting different results. For example, if the study’s participants are all socioeconomically advantaged and you see this a limitation because it’s not nationally representative, discuss how results of a mid/low SES sample could be different. Simply saying that the results aren’t “generalizable” IS NOT ENOUGH. You must justify your argument for selecting a more diverse sample, otherwise there is not enough evidence to suggest that the study’s findings are not generalizable! Again, please realize that it is your explanations and arguments that I evaluate, so don’t leave your comments unexplained or unsupported.
SUPER IMPORTANT NOTE regarding STRENGHTS:
I have found that students are often confused as to what they should consider a “strength” and what things are just “given (must haves!)” in a work that is published in an academic journal. Below are things that are NOT strengths, and rather “given”, so please don’t include these as strengths of the article! Violation of these can be considered a limitation:
· Random assignment
· Having conditions that differ on only one aspect
· Coders being blind to the study’s hypotheses
· Use of reliable and valid measures
· Citing relevant pri.
Induction Module Brief and Guidelines Assignment 3a .docxcarliotwaycave
Induction Module
Brief and Guidelines
Assignment 3a
Writing a Critical Review
Detailed Assessment Information
Submission Details
The aim assignment 3a is to develop your skills in evaluating an author’s work and producing a
critical analysis that expresses your opinion and evaluation of it. Writing a critical review requires
both critical reading and critical writing.
Worth: 20% of your overall grade
Requirements
Typed in an electronic format (Word or PDF document)
Uploaded to the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)
Follows the structure of a Critical Review
Do not use headings to divide your work into sections.
Document’s name should be your student number and name.
Cover Page (Including Course Name, Your Name and Student ID Number, Title of your
Essay, Tutor’s Name, Date)
The word limit is 700 words (+/- 10%)
Includes in-text citation and a Reference List on a Separate Page using the correct
Reference Style
Please Note
By submitting your work you are agreeing to abide by the University’s regulations on
plagiarism. For further information on UNICAF’s stance on plagiarism, please read the
University's Student Regulations.
The box on the right hand side of the assignment must be ticked √ in order to proceed to
uploading the next assignment.
Instructions
In order to write your Critical Review you must follow the structure used for critical reviews that will
best allow you to support your thesis within the required word limit constraint.
Structure of a Critical Review
1. Introduction (with thesis)
2. Overview of the text
3. Evaluation of the text
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4 …(continue as
necessary)
4. Conclusion
5. References
6. Conclusion1. Introduction
The length of an introduction is usually one paragraph for a journal article.
Include a few opening sentences that announce the author(s) and the title.
Briefly explain the topic of the text.
Present the aim of the text and summarise the main finding or key argument.
Conclude the introduction with a brief statement of your evaluation of the text. This can be a
positive or negative evaluation or a mixed response.
2. Overview
Present a summary of the key points along with a limited number of examples.
Briefly explain the author’s purpose/intentions throughout the text.
Briefly describe how the text is organised.
The overview should only make up about a third of the critical review.
3. Evaluation
The critique should be a balanced discussion and evaluation of the strengths, weakness and
notable features of the text.
Remember to base your discussion on specific criteria. Good reviews also include other
sources to support your evaluation (remember to reference).
You can choose how to sequence your critique. Here are some examples to get you started:
Most important to least important conclusions you make about the text.
If your critique is more positive than negativ ...
Richard's entangled aventures in wonderlandRichard Gill
Since the loophole-free Bell experiments of 2020 and the Nobel prizes in physics of 2022, critics of Bell's work have retreated to the fortress of super-determinism. Now, super-determinism is a derogatory word - it just means "determinism". Palmer, Hance and Hossenfelder argue that quantum mechanics and determinism are not incompatible, using a sophisticated mathematical construction based on a subtle thinning of allowed states and measurements in quantum mechanics, such that what is left appears to make Bell's argument fail, without altering the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics. I think however that it is a smoke screen, and the slogan "lost in math" comes to my mind. I will discuss some other recent disproofs of Bell's theorem using the language of causality based on causal graphs. Causal thinking is also central to law and justice. I will mention surprising connections to my work on serial killer nurse cases, in particular the Dutch case of Lucia de Berk and the current UK case of Lucy Letby.
A brief information about the SCOP protein database used in bioinformatics.
The Structural Classification of Proteins (SCOP) database is a comprehensive and authoritative resource for the structural and evolutionary relationships of proteins. It provides a detailed and curated classification of protein structures, grouping them into families, superfamilies, and folds based on their structural and sequence similarities.
THE IMPORTANCE OF MARTIAN ATMOSPHERE SAMPLE RETURN.Sérgio Sacani
The return of a sample of near-surface atmosphere from Mars would facilitate answers to several first-order science questions surrounding the formation and evolution of the planet. One of the important aspects of terrestrial planet formation in general is the role that primary atmospheres played in influencing the chemistry and structure of the planets and their antecedents. Studies of the martian atmosphere can be used to investigate the role of a primary atmosphere in its history. Atmosphere samples would also inform our understanding of the near-surface chemistry of the planet, and ultimately the prospects for life. High-precision isotopic analyses of constituent gases are needed to address these questions, requiring that the analyses are made on returned samples rather than in situ.
Introduction:
RNA interference (RNAi) or Post-Transcriptional Gene Silencing (PTGS) is an important biological process for modulating eukaryotic gene expression.
It is highly conserved process of posttranscriptional gene silencing by which double stranded RNA (dsRNA) causes sequence-specific degradation of mRNA sequences.
dsRNA-induced gene silencing (RNAi) is reported in a wide range of eukaryotes ranging from worms, insects, mammals and plants.
This process mediates resistance to both endogenous parasitic and exogenous pathogenic nucleic acids, and regulates the expression of protein-coding genes.
What are small ncRNAs?
micro RNA (miRNA)
short interfering RNA (siRNA)
Properties of small non-coding RNA:
Involved in silencing mRNA transcripts.
Called “small” because they are usually only about 21-24 nucleotides long.
Synthesized by first cutting up longer precursor sequences (like the 61nt one that Lee discovered).
Silence an mRNA by base pairing with some sequence on the mRNA.
Discovery of siRNA?
The first small RNA:
In 1993 Rosalind Lee (Victor Ambros lab) was studying a non- coding gene in C. elegans, lin-4, that was involved in silencing of another gene, lin-14, at the appropriate time in the
development of the worm C. elegans.
Two small transcripts of lin-4 (22nt and 61nt) were found to be complementary to a sequence in the 3' UTR of lin-14.
Because lin-4 encoded no protein, she deduced that it must be these transcripts that are causing the silencing by RNA-RNA interactions.
Types of RNAi ( non coding RNA)
MiRNA
Length (23-25 nt)
Trans acting
Binds with target MRNA in mismatch
Translation inhibition
Si RNA
Length 21 nt.
Cis acting
Bind with target Mrna in perfect complementary sequence
Piwi-RNA
Length ; 25 to 36 nt.
Expressed in Germ Cells
Regulates trnasposomes activity
MECHANISM OF RNAI:
First the double-stranded RNA teams up with a protein complex named Dicer, which cuts the long RNA into short pieces.
Then another protein complex called RISC (RNA-induced silencing complex) discards one of the two RNA strands.
The RISC-docked, single-stranded RNA then pairs with the homologous mRNA and destroys it.
THE RISC COMPLEX:
RISC is large(>500kD) RNA multi- protein Binding complex which triggers MRNA degradation in response to MRNA
Unwinding of double stranded Si RNA by ATP independent Helicase
Active component of RISC is Ago proteins( ENDONUCLEASE) which cleave target MRNA.
DICER: endonuclease (RNase Family III)
Argonaute: Central Component of the RNA-Induced Silencing Complex (RISC)
One strand of the dsRNA produced by Dicer is retained in the RISC complex in association with Argonaute
ARGONAUTE PROTEIN :
1.PAZ(PIWI/Argonaute/ Zwille)- Recognition of target MRNA
2.PIWI (p-element induced wimpy Testis)- breaks Phosphodiester bond of mRNA.)RNAse H activity.
MiRNA:
The Double-stranded RNAs are naturally produced in eukaryotic cells during development, and they have a key role in regulating gene expression .
Richard's aventures in two entangled wonderlandsRichard Gill
Since the loophole-free Bell experiments of 2020 and the Nobel prizes in physics of 2022, critics of Bell's work have retreated to the fortress of super-determinism. Now, super-determinism is a derogatory word - it just means "determinism". Palmer, Hance and Hossenfelder argue that quantum mechanics and determinism are not incompatible, using a sophisticated mathematical construction based on a subtle thinning of allowed states and measurements in quantum mechanics, such that what is left appears to make Bell's argument fail, without altering the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics. I think however that it is a smoke screen, and the slogan "lost in math" comes to my mind. I will discuss some other recent disproofs of Bell's theorem using the language of causality based on causal graphs. Causal thinking is also central to law and justice. I will mention surprising connections to my work on serial killer nurse cases, in particular the Dutch case of Lucia de Berk and the current UK case of Lucy Letby.
Slide 1: Title Slide
Extrachromosomal Inheritance
Slide 2: Introduction to Extrachromosomal Inheritance
Definition: Extrachromosomal inheritance refers to the transmission of genetic material that is not found within the nucleus.
Key Components: Involves genes located in mitochondria, chloroplasts, and plasmids.
Slide 3: Mitochondrial Inheritance
Mitochondria: Organelles responsible for energy production.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA): Circular DNA molecule found in mitochondria.
Inheritance Pattern: Maternally inherited, meaning it is passed from mothers to all their offspring.
Diseases: Examples include Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON) and mitochondrial myopathy.
Slide 4: Chloroplast Inheritance
Chloroplasts: Organelles responsible for photosynthesis in plants.
Chloroplast DNA (cpDNA): Circular DNA molecule found in chloroplasts.
Inheritance Pattern: Often maternally inherited in most plants, but can vary in some species.
Examples: Variegation in plants, where leaf color patterns are determined by chloroplast DNA.
Slide 5: Plasmid Inheritance
Plasmids: Small, circular DNA molecules found in bacteria and some eukaryotes.
Features: Can carry antibiotic resistance genes and can be transferred between cells through processes like conjugation.
Significance: Important in biotechnology for gene cloning and genetic engineering.
Slide 6: Mechanisms of Extrachromosomal Inheritance
Non-Mendelian Patterns: Do not follow Mendel’s laws of inheritance.
Cytoplasmic Segregation: During cell division, organelles like mitochondria and chloroplasts are randomly distributed to daughter cells.
Heteroplasmy: Presence of more than one type of organellar genome within a cell, leading to variation in expression.
Slide 7: Examples of Extrachromosomal Inheritance
Four O’clock Plant (Mirabilis jalapa): Shows variegated leaves due to different cpDNA in leaf cells.
Petite Mutants in Yeast: Result from mutations in mitochondrial DNA affecting respiration.
Slide 8: Importance of Extrachromosomal Inheritance
Evolution: Provides insight into the evolution of eukaryotic cells.
Medicine: Understanding mitochondrial inheritance helps in diagnosing and treating mitochondrial diseases.
Agriculture: Chloroplast inheritance can be used in plant breeding and genetic modification.
Slide 9: Recent Research and Advances
Gene Editing: Techniques like CRISPR-Cas9 are being used to edit mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA.
Therapies: Development of mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) for preventing mitochondrial diseases.
Slide 10: Conclusion
Summary: Extrachromosomal inheritance involves the transmission of genetic material outside the nucleus and plays a crucial role in genetics, medicine, and biotechnology.
Future Directions: Continued research and technological advancements hold promise for new treatments and applications.
Slide 11: Questions and Discussion
Invite Audience: Open the floor for any questions or further discussion on the topic.
5. • What is reviewing?
• How Peer review works?
• Who reviews?
• Role of the Peer Reviewer
• Benefits of the Peer Review
• What to Focus on During a Peer Review
• Best Practices for Peer Reviews
• Decision on the manuscript
Contents dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
6. Evaluating the quality of scientists’ to ensure the
work is rigorous, coherent, uses past research and
adds to what we already knew.
Aims dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
7. Reviewing is:
What Is Reviewing? dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
1.Quality control: publish or not?
2.Constructive criticism: how to improve?
Be as efficient as possible with the first, to
leave most time for the second.
9. The less experience you have, and the less knowledge of
the field, the longer you will need to spend on a review.
Who reviews? dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
10. • Mostly established academics -it's an eternal duty...Typically,
a second-year PhD student may co-review with supervisor;
a final-year PhD student might write review independently if in own area.
Who reviews? (cont’d) dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
11. •
The reviewer’s role is:
• To provide thoughtful and specific narrative comments.
• To help the writer get her/his point across in the most
effective way possible.
• To show respect for that writer’s ideas.
• To comment on the writing, not the writer.
Role of the Peer Reviewer dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
12. The reviewer’s role is not
• To agree or disagree with the writer.
• To convert the writer to any particular viewpoint.
• To argue with the writer about points in the text.
• To proofread for spelling errors.
Role of the Peer Reviewer
(cont’d) dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
13. 1- Whether I'm sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic to
offer an intelligent assessment ?
I consider factors:
2- How interesting I find the research topic ?
3- Whether I’m free of any conflict of interest ?
4- Whether I have the time?
What do you consider when deciding whether to
accept an invitation to review a paper? dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
If the answer is , then I to review.
14. 1- Who is the audience?
Reviewers should try to think about what audience is targeted
by the text and offer suggestions for ways that the writer
might alter the organization of ideas, language, or overall tone
to best fit that audience.
2- What is the main idea?
The first thing a reviewer should do is to identify what he or
she thinks is the main idea in the draft. If that does not match
what the writer intended, this information alone is valuable to
the writer.
Questions for the peer reviewer to ask dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa
0580066073
15. 3- What does the reader need to know about an idea for it to
make sense?
• Deciding how much information is enough requires the
writer to have some idea of what the reader knows about
the topic.
• A good reviewer helps the writer by pointing out language
and concepts that they do not understand.
Questions for the Peer Reviewer
to Ask (cont’d) dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
16. 4- Are examples needed?
• If the reader is unclear as to what point or points a writer is
trying to make, then more examples that provide detailed
explanation are probably needed.
• The reviewer should point out every place in the draft where
the main idea or supporting ideas are unclear.
Questions for the Peer Reviewer
to Ask (cont’d) dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
17. 5- Is evidence or support needed?
• The job of the reviewer is to help the writer determine which
claims need to be supported with evidence and which claims
simply need to be revised. Look for sweeping generalizations,
unsupported claims that look like facts, and facts that are not
common knowledge.
6- Is the topic appropriate to the writing task?
• As you review the draft, ask yourself if the topic is too
general or if it is too specific. Determine whether the draft
adequately explains all of its points.
Questions for the Peer Reviewer
to Ask (cont’d) dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
18. 7- Are the main points of the draft organized in a logical way?
Circle the writer’s main point and the topic sentence of each
paragraph. After these points are circled, look at them to see
if they seem to occur in a logical order and if the topic
sentences fit with the main point of the draft.
Questions for the Peer Reviewer
to Ask (cont’d) dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
20. Benefits of the Peer Review
• Peer review provides another set of eyes “fresh eyes” on
your paper.
• It gives the writer the point of view of the reader.
Why do a peer review? dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
21. During a peer review, focus on:
• Understanding what the writer is trying to say before offering your
suggestions.
• Making one comment that refers to several parts of the paper rather
than commenting on the same thing repeatedly.
• Remembering that the goal of the review is to help the writer
improve the effectiveness of his/her message, not for the writer and
reviewer to share the same opinions on the topic.
What to Focus on During
a Peer Review?
dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
24. • It usually takes me a few hours. Most of the time is spent closely
reading the paper and taking notes. Once I have the notes, writing
the review itself generally takes less than an hour.
Walsh
• It can take me quite a long time to write a good review,
sometimes a full day of work and sometimes even longer.
Selenko
• Normally, a peer review takes me 1 or 2 days, including reading
the supporting information.
Müller
How long does it take you
to review a paper?
dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
25. To avoid unintended negative outcomes, peer reviewers should:
1. 1- Always read the entire draft before making any comments.
2. 2- Assume that the writer is being sincere when making claims
even if the ideas seem strange.
3. 3- Always re-read all comments and responses before making
the review public to the writer or anyone else.
4. 4- Never, ever send a response when aggravated or angry.
Best Practices for Peer Reviews dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa
0580066073
26. 5. When reviewing on paper, number the sentences in each
paragraph and then number each paragraph. Use these
numbers to reference where your comments apply.
6. When reviewing online, make sure to check your
annotations for typos before sharing them.
7. Consistently use one method of notation and make sure the
writer understands that method.
Best Practices for
Peer Reviews (Cont’d) dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
27. 1- Be concise, but specific.
If the paper is bad, say why, as specically as possible, and try to
phrase positively (The paper would have been better if...). If it's
been done before, give the reference. If a statement is false, give a
counterexample.
Advice for researchers who are new to the peer- review process
dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
28. 2- Be polite, but not bland.
Remember the authors are human and getting a bad review is a
horrible experience: but also that you're part of the quality control
mechanism and the journal editor needs to be able to tell
what you really think, easily.
Advice for researchers who are new to the peer- review process
dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
29. •A good peer review requires disciplinary
expertise, a keen and critical eye, and a
diplomatic and constructive approach.
dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa 0580066073
30. – Accept
– Accept with minor revision
– Accept with major revision
– Reject
Decision on the manuscript dhasanin@ksu.edu.sa
0580066073
32. Manuscript Review
Reviewer’s Information
Manuscript Information
Reviewer’s Blind Review Comments to Author
Kindly enter your comments based on the following sections. Also please include text excerpt or
row / page no. from the manuscript for ease of reference by the author.
E-Mail:
Title:
First Name:
Last Name:
Affiliation:
Country:
Specialization:
Journal Name:
Manuscript
Number:
Manuscript Title:
Date Received
from Journal:
Date to Send
Review Report:
1. Originality:
1. <<provide your comments on how original is the
research being conducted e.g. is it contributing to
new knowledge, reinvent the wheel etc.>>
2.
Scientific
Quality:
1. <<provide your comments on the manuscript’s
quality from the scientific viewpoints>>
3.
Relevance to the
Field(s) of this
Journal:
1. << provide your comments on how relevant this
manuscript is matching the field(s) covered by this
journal>>
33. 4.
General
Comment:
1. <<provide the key observations / salient points that
you can discover from the manuscript>>
5. Abstract:
1. <<provide your comments which include: purpose,
design /methodology / approach, findings, limitations
/ implications, originality / value & keywords of the
abstract>>
6. Introduction:
1. <<provide your comments which include:
background information, research problem, research
objective(s), research question(s)>>
7.
Literature
Review:
1. <<provide your comments on the adequacy of the
literature reviewed, the use of updated literature,
underpinning theory / theoretical frameworks etc.>>
8. Methodology:
1. <<provide your comments on how the research /
study is being conducted e.g. conceptual framework /
research model, operationalization of the constructs /
variables, research design / method, types of
instrument used, sampling, data collection approach,
proposed data analysis techniques / tools etc.>>
9. Results:
1. <<provide your comments on the empirical findings /
evidences which include accuracy, reliability, validity
etc.>>
10. Discussions:
1. <<provide your comments on the points discussed &
justified by the author>>
11. Conclusions:
1. <<provide your comments on the research
limitations, future research recommendation and
conclusion of the manuscript>>
12.
References /
Bibliography:
1. <<provide your comments inclusive references /
bibliography are following the appropriate format
e.g. APA, MLA, Harvard etc., tally with & matching
the citations in the manuscript’s body text etc.>>
34. Please rate the following: (1 = Excellent) (2 = Good) (3 = Fair) (4 = Poor)
Reviewer’s Confidential Comments to Editor
13. Figures:
1. <<provide your comments on how the figures are
meeting journal’s author guidelines e.g. in terms of
size, graphic resolution etc.>>
14. Tables:
1. <<provide your comments on how the tables are
meeting journal’s author guidelines e.g. in terms of
size, APA format etc.>>
15. Others:
1. <<provide other comments not belong to above
sections e.g. presentation etc.>>
16.
Reviewer’s
Decision
Comment:
1. <<provide overall evaluation on the manuscript>>
1. Originality
2. Scientific Quality
3. Relevance to the Field(s) of Journal
4. Depth Of Research
5. Abstract
6. Introduction
7. Literature Review
8. Methodology
9. Results
10. Discussions
11. Conclusions
12. References / Bibliography
13. Figures
14. Tables
15. Clarity Of Presentation
Total Score:
<<define any section if
needed>>
1. <<please enter your comment here>>
35. Recommandation
Kindly mark with an X
Accept As Is:
Requires Minor Corrections:
Requires Moderate Revision:
Requires Major Revision:
Submit To Another
Publication Such As:
Rejection (Please provide
reasons)