journal review guidelines

8/8/2019 Journal Review Guidelines

1/19

Journal Review Guidelines


2/19

Five major questions that are central to

the research review process:

1. What do the researchers want to find out?

2. Why is that important to investigate or understand?

3. How are the researchers investigating this? Are theirresearch methods appropriate and adequate to the task?

4. What do they claim to have found out? Are the findings

clearly stated?

5. How does this advance knowledge in the field? How

well do the researchers place their findings within the

context of ongoing scholarly inquiry about this topic?


3/19

The ideal review will be fair, unbiased,

speedy, and confidential. The ideal reviewer

will approach the paper in terms of questions

such as: "Is the science good?" and "Is it

understandable?" or "What is needed to make

it clear?" rather than "What are all the little

things that annoy me in style orpresentation?"

What the journal tells you


4/19


5/19

Reviewers must attempt to be impartial when evaluating amanuscript. Although it is difficult to be completely

objective when assessing a paper that may not coincidewith one's own beliefs or values, nevertheless, a reviewermust always strive for that goal. If a reviewer cannotseparate the evaluation process from a desire to advocate apreferred theory or to reject the manuscript out-of-hand onphilosophical grounds, then the reviewer should disqualifyhimself or herself from that review.

Do not allow the manuscript to be reproduced while inyour custody. You must not use the manuscript for yourpersonal advantage in any way. You cannot cite it or use itscontents in any way until/unless it is published. If it is not

published but you wish to use it, you need to contact theauthor (e.g. via the editor if the journal uses double-blindreviewing).


6/19

1.2 Abstract

Abstracts accompany articles in most journals,and they are often republished as printed insecondary abstracting services and journals.

The abstract, therefore, should meet tworequirements;

a) A reader should be able to tell readily the valueof the article and whether or not to read itcompletely.

b) It also should provide the literature searcherwith enough information to assess its value andto index it for later retrieval.


7/19

According to the Agronomy Journal, the abstract

should:

Strive for an impersonal, non-critical, and informative account. Give a clear, grammatically accurate, exact, and stylistically uniform treatment of the

subject.

Provide rationale or justification for the study.The statement should give a brief

account of the purpose, need, and significance of the investigation (hypothesis or how

the present work differs from previous work).

State the objectives clearly as to what is to be obtained. Give a brief account of the methods, emphasizing departures from the customary. Be

specific.

State key results succinctly.

Outline conclusions or recommendations. An emphasis of the significance of the work,

conclusions, and recommendations. This may include new theories, interpretations,

evaluations, or applications. Be quantitative and avoid the use of general terms, especially in presenting the method

and reporting the results. For example, if two rates of a treatment are used, state what

they are.

Never cite references.

Contain about 200 to 250 words.


8/19

Different journals specify different lengths for their

abstracts. Some are not long enough to do all of thepoints listed above. If cutting aspects out, look at

dropping methods, reducing objectives to a

minimum, and limiting results and conclusions to

absolute highlights.


9/19

1.3 Manuscript General Content Across all the review rounds, reviewers should strive to

distinguish between what is perceived as correctable versusuncorrectable problems and between major versus minor

concerns.

The first round of reviews is the time for reviewers to highlight

uncorrectable problems or other major concerns about a paper.

It is generally inappropriate to raise them in later review rounds

if they already existed in the first draft submitted.

In most cases, new uncorrectable problems or new major

concerns raised in later reviews should only apply to changes in

a paper that have emerged through the authors' revision work.


10/19

1.4 Quality of Writing Clarity is vitally important. Whether or not you are an expert in the

subject discussed, you should understand the paper's content. Read

each paragraph carefully. Is there likely to be confusion? If so, request

that the author clarify. If you have some suggested revisions, these are

usually appreciated by authors, but please don't feel obliged to rewrite

the manuscript.

Do the paragraphs flow smoothly? Is the manuscript readable? Can

you make suggestions for improvement? (Suggest using active voice.)

Is there unnecessary repetition? Can you suggest deletion of sentences

or phrases or words that add little to the paper?

Are enough examples provided to assist readers in relating to theauthor' s ideas? Can you suggest some examples that the author might

want to include in his or her revision?

What parts of the manuscript do you really like? Let the author(s)

know.


11/19

1.5 Remember...

Reviewers should not attempt to rewrite a

poorly written manuscript.

Reviewers will remain anonymous. Prompt attention to manuscripts will be

appreciated both by the authors and by the

Editors.


12/19

The writing style is important. Consider the three guidelines for

successful communication--to be clear, concise, and correct---

and whether the authors have achieved it:

1. Is the writing clear? Do the authors communicate their ideas usingdirect, straightforward, and unambiguous words and phrases? Havethey avoided jargon (statistical or conceptual) that would interferewith the communication of their procedures or ideas?

2. Is the writing concise? Are too many words or paragraphs or

sections used to present what could be communicated moresimply?

3. Is the writing correct? Too may promising scientists have only arudimentary grasp of grammar and punctuation that result inmeandering commas, clauses in complex sentences that arestruggling to find their verbs, and adjectives or even nouns that

remain quite ambiguous about their antecedents in the sentence.These are not merely technical issues of grammar to be somehowdealt with by a copy-editor down the line. Rather they involve thesuccessful communication of a set of ideas to an audience; and thisis the basis of scholarship today.


13/19

Good Reviews and Bad Reviews

A good review is supportive, constructive,thoughtful, and fair. It identifies both strengthsand weaknesses, and offers concrete suggestionsfor improvements. It acknowledges thereviewer's biases where appropriate, and justifiesthe reviewer's conclusions.

A bad review is superficial, nasty, petty, self-serving, or arrogant. It indulges the reviewer's

biases with no justification. It focuses exclusivelyon weaknesses and offers no specific suggestionsfor improvement.


14/19

1.6 What you provide to the editor 1. A brief letter addressed to the editor (not for the

authors eyes) with a specific recommendation. Differentjournals have slight variations in the list of possiblerecommendations. They are likely to be similar to thefollowing options:

Accept unconditionally. This rarely used category should bereserved for manuscripts that are virtually flawless in theircontent. In general, when a reviewer makes thisrecommendation, he or she will be regarded as havingsigned off on the manuscript.

Acceptconditionally, subject to minor revisions, accordingto accompanying comments. This recommendation should

be made when the manuscript is judged to be quite strongand in need of only minor additions, deletions, orcorrections. It does not need to be reviewed again, in yourview. The editor can judge whether revisions have beenmade adequately.


15/19

2. Separate comments to the author. Pleaseensure that comments are detailed and clear and

that they are constructive in nature, even if youare recommending that the paper be rejected.Make suggestions about length, organization,tables, figures and references. Number all

comments, to make it easy for the author to referto them in correspondence with the editor.

A quality review should note the strengths aswell as the weaknesses of the manuscript.Authors need to know what they have done welland not just what they have done poorly.


16/19

2. What the journals dont tell you

2.1 A suggested strategy

Work from a printed copy. This makes it easier tomake notes on it as you go, and to read it inplaces where you would not take a computer.

If the decision is really obvious and you areconfident about your ability to judge the paper,you could write your review immediately afteryour first reading. Otherwise, leave it a few days

or a week and come back to it. Read it again, orread problem sections again, and then write yourreview.


17/19

If you are not going to reject the paper, obtain

a copy of a recent issue of the journal, or a

paper from a recent issue, to check on

formatting of headings, tables, figures,

references. Note any problems in these areas

in your review. You might also check thejournals instructions to authors at that stage,

although rarely find that useful.

Write the manuscript reference number andtitle at the top of your review.


18/19

Always number your comments. If you havemultiple related comments, number them

separately. This allows the editor and the authorsto easily refer to your comments in furthercorrespondence.

Start by saying something positive about the

paper, no matter how difficult this is. Say as manypositive things as the paper deserves (or onemore than that if it doesnt deserve any) beforeyou get into criticisms.

Some reviewers provide an overview of thepaper. There is no need to do this. The editor willread the paper too and the authors already knowwhats in it!


19/19

Next, note any concerns or problems at the big picturelevel. e.g. relating to the overall approach, thestatistical methods, the interpretation of results, thequality of presentation or writing.

Then, start presenting specific comments on the paper.Note the page number and the line number for eachcomment if possible. Start with most important orserious of the specific comments, and then include anyminor issues.

There is no need to write a conclusion to your review.

If you have cited any literature, provide completereference details.

At the end of a review, write End. on a line by itself tomake it clear that there is no further information andno lost pages.

journal review guidelines

Documents