User Tools

Site Tools


public:research_firm_reviewing_a_paper

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
public:research_firm_reviewing_a_paper [2015/02/16 14:03]
aguirreg [Example]
public:research_firm_reviewing_a_paper [2019/02/17 13:32] (current)
aguirreg [The structure of a written review]
Line 41: Line 41:
   * **Insulting statements, including disparaging comments that assume the author is not a native speaker of English**. Anonymous forums can produce obnoxious behavior. Hold yourself to a dual standard: 1) Write your review as if it is publicly available with your name attached, 2) Review a paper as you would hope to be reviewed. If you do find the writing to be poor or difficult to understand, you can communicate this in a gentle manner. For example "At points, I found the style of writing difficult to understand. Some sentences could benefit from proofreading or editing for grammar."​   * **Insulting statements, including disparaging comments that assume the author is not a native speaker of English**. Anonymous forums can produce obnoxious behavior. Hold yourself to a dual standard: 1) Write your review as if it is publicly available with your name attached, 2) Review a paper as you would hope to be reviewed. If you do find the writing to be poor or difficult to understand, you can communicate this in a gentle manner. For example "At points, I found the style of writing difficult to understand. Some sentences could benefit from proofreading or editing for grammar."​
   * **Gratuitous requests for citations of your work**. You have been asked to review the manuscript because you have performed work in this area. It is sometimes the case that work of yours is directly relevant to the claims being made in the paper and this is a legitimate request. You should, however, feel sheepish about doing so.   * **Gratuitous requests for citations of your work**. You have been asked to review the manuscript because you have performed work in this area. It is sometimes the case that work of yours is directly relevant to the claims being made in the paper and this is a legitimate request. You should, however, feel sheepish about doing so.
-  * **References to papers without providing a full citation**. Don't be this guy: "The authors should cite the work of the Smith lab". This is lazy. If you are going to cite a paper in your review, be precise regarding the paper to be cited and the aspect of the paper you are drawing to the attention of the authors. ​+  * **References to papers without providing a full citation**. Don't be this person: "The authors should cite the work of the Smith lab". This is lazy. If you are going to cite a paper in your review, be precise regarding the paper to be cited and the aspect of the paper you are drawing to the attention of the authors. ​
 ===== The new wave of peer review ===== ===== The new wave of peer review =====
  
/var/www/html/aguirreg/html/wiki/data/pages/public/research_firm_reviewing_a_paper.txt · Last modified: 2019/02/17 13:32 by aguirreg