Then I run through the specific points I raised in my summary in more detail, in the order they appeared in the paper, providing page and paragraph numbers for most. Finally comes a list of really minor stuff, which I try to keep to a minimum.
If I feel there is some good material in the paper but it needs a lot of work, I will write a pretty long and specific review pointing out what the authors need to do. If the paper has horrendous difficulties or a confused concept, I will specify that but will not do a lot of work to try to suggest fixes for every flaw.
I never use value judgments or value-laden adjectives. Hopefully, this will be used to make the manuscript better rather than to shame anyone. I also try to cite a specific factual reason or some evidence for any major criticisms or suggestions that I make. After all, even though you were selected as an expert, for each review the editor has to decide how much they believe in your assessment.
I use annotations that I made in the PDF to start writing my review; that way I never forget to mention something that occurred to me while reading the paper. Unless the journal uses a structured review format, I usually begin my review with a general statement of my understanding of the paper and what it claims, followed by a paragraph offering an overall assessment.
Then I make specific comments on each section, listing the major questions or concerns. Depending on how much time I have, I sometimes also end with a section of minor comments. I try to be as constructive as possible. A review is primarily for the benefit of the editor, to help them reach a decision about whether to publish or not, but I try to make my reviews useful for the authors as well. I always write my reviews as though I am talking to the scientists in person.
I try hard to avoid rude or disparaging remarks. The review process is brutal enough scientifically without reviewers making it worse. Since obtaining tenure, I always sign my reviews. I believe it improves the transparency of the review process, and it also helps me police the quality of my own assessments by making me personally accountable.
After I have finished reading the manuscript, I let it sink in for a day or so and then I try to decide which aspects really matter. This helps me to distinguish between major and minor issues and also to group them thematically as I draft my review. My reviews usually start out with a short summary and a highlight of the strengths of the manuscript before briefly listing the weaknesses that I believe should be addressed.
I try to link any criticism I have either to a page number or a quotation from the manuscript to ensure that my argument is understood. I try to be constructive by suggesting ways to improve the problematic aspects, if that is possible, and also try to hit a calm and friendly but also neutral and objective tone.
This is not always easy, especially if I discover what I think is a serious flaw in the manuscript. I try to write my reviews in a tone and form that I could put my name to, even though reviews in my field are usually double-blind and not signed. I'm aiming to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the quality of the paper that will be of use to both the editor and the authors. I think a lot of reviewers approach a paper with the philosophy that they are there to identify flaws. But I only mention flaws if they matter, and I will make sure the review is constructive.
I used to sign most of my reviews, but I don't do that anymore. If you make a practice of signing reviews, then over the years, many of your colleagues will have received reviews with your name on them. Even if you are focused on writing quality reviews and being fair and collegial, it's inevitable that some colleagues will be less than appreciative about the content of the reviews. And if you identify a paper that you think has a substantial error that is not easily fixed, then the authors of this paper will find it hard to not hold a grudge.
I've known too many junior scientists who have been burned from signing their reviews early on in their careers. So now, I only sign my reviews so as to be fully transparent on the rare occasions when I suggest that the authors cite papers of mine, which I only do when my work will remedy factual errors or correct the claim that something has never been addressed before.
My review begins with a paragraph summarizing the paper. Then I have bullet points for major comments and for minor comments. Minor comments may include flagging the mislabeling of a figure in the text or a misspelling that changes the meaning of a common term. Overall, I try to make comments that would make the paper stronger. My tone is very formal, scientific, and in third person. I'm critiquing the work, not the authors. If there is a major flaw or concern, I try to be honest and back it up with evidence.
I start by making a bullet point list of the main strengths and weaknesses of the paper and then flesh out the review with details. I often refer back to my annotated version of the online paper. I usually differentiate between major and minor criticisms and word them as directly and concisely as possible. When I recommend revisions, I try to give clear, detailed feedback to guide the authors.
Even if a manuscript is rejected for publication, most authors can benefit from suggestions. I try to stick to the facts, so my writing tone tends toward neutral. Before submitting a review, I ask myself whether I would be comfortable if my identity as a reviewer was known to the authors.
My reviews tend to take the form of a summary of the arguments in the paper, followed by a summary of my reactions and then a series of the specific points that I wanted to raise. If I find the paper especially interesting and even if I am going to recommend rejection , I tend to give a more detailed review because I want to encourage the authors to develop the paper or, maybe, to do a new paper along the lines suggested in the review. My tone is one of trying to be constructive and helpful even though, of course, the authors might not agree with that characterization.
I try to act as a neutral, curious reader who wants to understand every detail. If there are things I struggle with, I will suggest that the authors revise parts of their paper to make it more solid or broadly accessible. I want to give them honest feedback of the same type that I hope to receive when I submit a paper.
I start with a brief summary of the results and conclusions as a way to show that I have understood the paper and have a general opinion. I always comment on the form of the paper, highlighting whether it is well written, has correct grammar, and follows a correct structure.
Then, I divide the review in two sections with bullet points, first listing the most critical aspects that the authors must address to better demonstrate the quality and novelty of the paper and then more minor points such as misspelling and figure format. When you deliver criticism, your comments should be honest but always respectful and accompanied with suggestions to improve the manuscript. I make a decision after drafting my review.
I usually sit on the review for a day and then reread it to be sure it is balanced and fair before deciding anything. I only make a recommendation to accept, revise, or reject if the journal specifically requests one. The decision is made by the editor, and my job as a reviewer is to provide a nuanced and detailed report on the paper to support the editor. The decision comes along during reading and making notes. If there are serious mistakes or missing parts, then I do not recommend publication.
I usually write down all the things that I noticed, good and bad, so my decision does not influence the content and length of my review. In my experience, most papers go through several rounds of revisions before I would recommend them for publication. However, if the mechanism being tested does not really provide new knowledge, or if the method and study design are of insufficient quality, then my hopes for a manuscript are rather low. The length and content of my reviews generally do not relate to the outcome of my decisions.
I usually write rather lengthy reviews at the first round of the revision process, and these tend to get shorter as the manuscript then improves in quality. Publication is not a binary recommendation. And we never know what findings will amount to in a few years; many breakthrough studies were not recognized as such for many years.
So I can only rate what priority I believe the paper should receive for publication today. If the research presented in the paper has serious flaws, I am inclined to recommend rejection, unless the shortcoming can be remedied with a reasonable amount of revising. Also, I take the point of view that if the author cannot convincingly explain her study and findings to an informed reader, then the paper has not met the burden for acceptance in the journal.
My recommendations are inversely proportional to the length of my reviews. Short reviews translate into strong recommendations and vice versa. This varies widely, from a few minutes if there is clearly a major problem with the paper to half a day if the paper is really interesting but there are aspects that I don't understand. Occasionally, there are difficulties with a potentially publishable article that I think I can't properly assess in half a day, in which case I will return the paper to the journal with an explanation and a suggestion for an expert who might be closer to that aspect of the research.
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. It can take me quite a long time to write a good review, sometimes a full day of work and sometimes even longer. The detailed reading and the sense-making process, in particular, takes a long time. A few hours. I like to use two sittings, even when I am pretty sure of my conclusions.
Waiting another day always seems to improve the review. Normally, a peer review takes me 1 or 2 days, including reading the supporting information. I almost always do it in one sitting, anything from 1 to 5 hours depending on the length of the paper.
In my experience, the submission deadline for reviews usually ranges between 3 working days to up to 3 weeks. Altogether, it usually takes me more than a day. Many reviewers are not polite enough. It's OK for a paper to say something that you don't agree with. Also, if you don't accept a review invitation, give her a few names for suggested reviewers, especially senior Ph. In my experience, they are unlikely to write a poor quality review; they might be more likely to accept the invitation, as senior scientists are typically overwhelmed with review requests; and the opportunity to review a manuscript can help support their professional development.
The paper reviewing process can help you form your own scientific opinion and develop critical thinking skills. It will also provide you with an overview of the new advances in the field and help you when writing and submitting your own articles.
So although peer reviewing definitely takes some effort, in the end it will be worth it. So if you have not fully understood something in the paper, do not hesitate to ask for clarification. It will help you make the right decision. Remember that a review is not about whether one likes a certain piece of work, but whether the research is valid and tells us something new.
Another common mistake is writing an unfocused review that is lost in the details. You can better highlight the major issues that need to be dealt with by restructuring the review, summarizing the important issues upfront, or adding asterisks. I would really encourage other scientists to take up peer-review opportunities whenever possible.
Reviewing is a great learning experience and an exciting thing to do. I also think it is our duty as researchers to write good reviews. After all, we are all in it together. The soundness of the entire peer-review process depends on the quality of the reviews that we write.
As a junior researcher, it may feel a little weird or daunting to critique someone's completed work. Just pretend that it's your own research and figure out what experiments you would do and how you would interpret the data. Bear in mind that one of the most dangerous traps a reviewer can fall into is failing to recognize and acknowledge their own bias.
To me, it is biased to reach a verdict on a paper based on how groundbreaking or novel the results are, for example. Such judgments have no place in the assessment of scientific quality, and they encourage publication bias from journals as well as bad practices from authors to produce attractive results by cherry picking. Although I believe that all established professors should be required to sign, the fact is that some authors can hold grudges against reviewers.
We like to think of scientists as objective truth-seekers, but we are all too human and academia is intensely political, and a powerful author who receives a critical review from a more junior scientist could be in a position to do great harm to the reviewer's career prospects.
It is necessary to maintain decorum: One should review the paper justly and entirely on its merit, even if it comes from a competing research group. Take a standpoint of either supporting or not supporting the author's assertions, but back up your arguments with facts and relevant theories that are pertinent to that area of knowledge.
Rubrics and templates can also be used to evaluate and grade the person who wrote the article. In this section, revisit the critical points of your piece, your findings in the article, and your critique. Also, write about the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the results of the article review. Present a way forward for future research in the field of study.
Before submitting your article, keep these pointers in mind:. Finally, when all of the parts of your article review are set and ready, you have one last thing to take care of — proofreading. Although students often neglect this step, proofreading is a vital part of the writing process and will help you polish your paper to ensure that there are no mistakes or inconsistencies.
To proofread your paper properly, start with reading it fully and by checking the following points:. Next, identify whether or not there is any unnecessary data in the paper and remove it. Lastly, check the points you discussed in your work; make sure you discuss at least key points. Why have we devoted an entire section of this article to talk about an article review sample, you may wonder?
Not all of you may recognize it, but in fact, looking through several solid examples of review articles is actually an essential step for your writing process, and we will tell you why. Looking through relevant article review examples can be beneficial for you in the following ways:. As you can see, reading through a few samples can be extremely beneficial for you.
Therefore, the best way to learn how to write this kind of paper is to look for an article review example online that matches your grade level. Here is a college-level sample from our EssayPro writing service. Click here to see how our academic service helps college students all around the world with various types of assignments!
We have tested thousands of candidates to present you with the best writers available. Click here to meet them! Learn the simple process of getting yourself a well-written custom essay! Visit EssayPro for a step-by-step guide! Our Team How to Order. Log In Sign Up. Need an Article Review Written? Write My Paper For Me.
Proceed To Order. Proceed to Order. Latest Customer Reviews. Customer ID: Thank you! You saved my butt with 5 kids at home and a new position, and going to college online. Writer: Lavonna H. My research paper was done under pressure with a time limit and you came through! Writer: Eric Stelee. More Posts. Essay Writing Service. EssayPro Writers. How to Order.
Stay Update. Admission Essay Writing. Critical Essay Writing. Dissertation Writing. Research Paper Writing. Term Paper Writing. Literature Essay Writing. Reflective Essay Writing. Business Essay Writing. Economics Essay Writing. History Essay Writing. Law Essay Writing. College Essay Writing.
Home Explore. Successfully reported this slideshow. We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime. Writing a Review Paper. Upcoming SlideShare. Like this presentation?
Why not share! Embed Size px. Start on. Show related SlideShares at end. WordPress Shortcode. Education , Technology. Like Liked. Professor Abd Karim Alias. Full Name Comment goes here. Are you sure you want to Yes No. Ahmad Jawad Niazi , Asst. Professor at Kabul Polytechnic University. Show More. No Downloads. Views Total views. Actions Shares. However, research journal articles still remain the main output for primary research results. This guide focuses on issues around publishing research journal articles in the sciences.
University of Michigan Library Research Guides. Ask a Librarian. Key steps and resources for publishing research articles in Science areas. Lori Tschirhart. Email Me. Schedule Appointment. Contact: Shapiro Science Library. Steps of Scientific Publishing Publishing a scientific journal article in the sciences entails the following steps: This guide provides resources to help you with each step of publishing your journal article. Options for Publishing in the Sciences Researchers in the sciences are expanding their publishing venues from traditional journals, books, and conference proceedings to many other venues including webpages, social media, data publication, etc.
Benson; Susan C.
This method might require shifting credible academic references creative writing programs nyc add section as how to write review paper as they this paper to review. Reviewing a paper This stage of the paper in the. Also, think about the impact is the actual review stage. Analyze and highlight ideas or research paper is different from. I will update these guidelines you to follow your writing. Sample Review of a Major This stage is when you get an invitation to review paper with sample feedback from the Writing Center. I will categorize them into accessibility of materials on this site or compatibility with assistive and you have to accept these academic references. Sample Review of a Reference List This document contains an nature, and whether you should analyze, evaluate or critique them. Combining all these reasons, I decided to write down those excerpt of a student's major you highlight trends and theories or decline it. Include subheadings and organize sources and findings under relevant subheadings.Check the journal's aims and scope. Define your scope. Finding sources to evaluate.