If the manuscript needs significant editing for language and writing quality, just mention this in your comments. Submit your review without proofreading it and checking everything one more time. Do… Justify your recommendation with concrete evidence and specific examples. Be specific so the authors know what they need to do to improve.
Be thorough. This might be the only time you read the manuscript. Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments too. Remember to say what you liked about the manuscript!
Before and After: Sample Reviewer Comments Keeping in mind the guidelines above, how do you put your thoughts into words? The authors should rewrite their Introduction and Discussion to reference the related literature, especially recently published work such as Darwin et al. I could barely bring myself to finish it. Once you are ready to submit your report, follow the instructions in the email or view this video if you encounter any difficulties.
Access the support center for further help The final decision The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. Elsevier plays no part in this decision. The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The platform provides a private profile page, certificates, editor recognition as well as discounts for Elsevier services.
If you make use of the Mendeley profile, your reviewing activities will be automatically captured. Your profile will display your reviewing history and thus demonstrate your input to the peer review process as well as detailing your own articles, positions and editorial work. Do not forget that, even after finalizing your review, you must treat the article and any linked files or data as confidential documents.
This means you must not share them or information about the review with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Finally, we take the opportunity to thank you sincerely on behalf of the journal, editors and author s for the time you have taken to give your valuable input to the article.
Tools and resources. Mind maps and Holistic Learning — studying using mind maps is a great way to review courses with a ton of related information, such as geography. By creating and reviewing mind maps of course concepts, you will be able to recall hopefully the entire course from a single term. Condense, then memorize. This is a technique that I recently learned from my English teacher.
Basically, you write out everything you need to know for the course onto paper. The next day, condense these four pages. LinkedIn You've just completed a read through of the article you've been invited to review. Hopefully this will give you a good idea of what recommendations to make before it can be accepted for publication.
But some sections of the article may be stronger than others, making it hard to decide what feedback you should give. Broadly speaking, the following questions should be addressed within your review and recommendations: There are four possible outcomes based on your assessment and here are some example scenarios for each: Accept with minor revisions Minor revisions may include changes or clarification to any points that have not been made clear in the presentation of the research or it might indicate that some citations are missing.
It could also mean that there may be too much or too little information in the presentation of the data or that slight amendments need to be made so that the conclusion correlates with the data. Accept with major revisions This means that more significant edits need to be made before the article can be accepted.
The following cases are considered major flaws and should be flagged: Unsound methodology Missing processes known to be influential on the area of reported research A conclusion drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript For analytical papers examine the sampling report, which is mandated in time-dependent studies. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence. Bear in mind that there will be the opportunity to direct separate comments to both the editor and author.
How to log in and access your review Your review will be managed via an Elsevier submission system such as Evise.
Hopefully this will give you a good idea of what recommendations to make before it can be accepted for publication. Remember that your ultimate goal is to discuss what the authors would need to do in order to qualify for publication. Giving effective feedback can be even more challenging. It will also aid the author and allow them to improve their manuscript. Finally, we take the opportunity to thank you sincerely on behalf of the journal, editors and author s for the time you have taken to give your valuable input to the article. By creating and reviewing mind maps of course concepts, you will be able to recall hopefully the entire course from a single term.
Minor issues are still important but typically will not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Reviewing can be a lot of work — before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.
Three editorial experts discuss the initiative in this on-demand webinar. Before and After: Sample Reviewer Comments Keeping in mind the guidelines above, how do you put your thoughts into words?
PeerReviewWeek18 Registered Reports increase inclusivity in research, improving transparency and reproducibility by reducing publication bias. You might consider spot checking major issues by choosing which section to read first. Ethical considerations Experiments including patient or animal data should properly be documented. Below we offer some tips about handling specific parts of the paper. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence.
The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.
Critical issues in research data, which are considered to be major flaws can be related to insufficient data points, statistically non-significant variations and unclear data tables. Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.