I usually consider first the relevance to my own expertise.I will turn down requests if the paper is too far removed from my own research areas, since I may not be able to provide an informed review.
I usually consider first the relevance to my own expertise.I will turn down requests if the paper is too far removed from my own research areas, since I may not be able to provide an informed review.Tags: How To Solve A Algebra ProblemPay You To Write My EssayBest Universities For Creative WritingAnalysis Of Essay On Man Epistle 2Multitasking EssayTwelfth Night Essay Questions On ComedyRespecting A Nco EssayBiology Coursework PhotosynthesisFunny Creative Writing Stories
I'm more prone to agree to do a review if it involves a system or method in which I have a particular expertise.
And I'm not going to take on a paper to review unless I have the time.
Having said that, I tend to define my expertise fairly broadly for reviewing purposes. I am more willing to review for journals that I read or publish in.
Before I became an editor, I used to be fairly eclectic in the journals I reviewed for, but now I tend to be more discerning, since my editing duties take up much of my reviewing time.
Writing a good review requires expertise in the field, an intimate knowledge of research methods, a critical mind, the ability to give fair and constructive feedback, and sensitivity to the feelings of authors on the receiving end.
As a range of institutions and organizations around the world celebrate the essential role of peer review in upholding the quality of published research this week, Careers shares collected insights and advice about how to review papers from researchers across the spectrum.Unless it’s for a journal I know well, the first thing I do is check what format the journal prefers the review to be in.Some journals have structured review criteria; others just ask for general and specific comments. I almost never print out papers for review; I prefer to work with the electronic version.(In my field, authors are under pressure to broadly sell their work, and it's my job as a reviewer to address the validity of such claims.) Third, I make sure that the design of the methods and analyses are appropriate. I also pay attention to the schemes and figures; if they are well designed and organized, then in most cases the entire paper has also been carefully thought out.First, I read a printed version to get an overall impression. When diving in deeper, first I try to assess whether all the important papers are cited in the references, as that also often correlates with the quality of the manuscript itself.That makes things a lot harder for editors of the less prestigious journals, and that's why I am more inclined to take on reviews from them.If I've never heard of the authors, and particularly if they're from a less developed nation, then I'm also more likely to accept the invitation.The responses have been edited for clarity and brevity.I consider four factors: whether I'm sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic to offer an intelligent assessment, how interesting I find the research topic, whether I’m free of any conflict of interest, and whether I have the time.As junior scientists develop their expertise and make names for themselves, they are increasingly likely to receive invitations to review research manuscripts.It’s an important skill and service to the scientific community, but the learning curve can be particularly steep.