How to write a manuscript review
Page 9, Results. You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. Best Practice During these checks you should keep in mind best practice: Standard guidelines were followed e.
How to write a manuscript review
Replicable Research This makes sufficient use of: Control experiments Repeated experiments Sampling These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome. The interpretation about the value of screening for IL-9 in prostate cancer must be supported by a cost-per-survival-year analysis to allow comparisons with the existing biomarkers for prostate cancer. Although serum PSA was measured as part of the standard of care in the clinic, the PSA results were unknown to the researchers to avoid any bias in the diagnosis. Thus, the use of only 12 months of follow-up represents a major limitation of the current study and does not allow full evaluation of the long-term diagnostic value of IL-9 as a tumor marker for detecting recurrence. Guess who is holding the sheet up. It never hurts to give examples of what you mean. The most common form of tribalism is to ignore the findings or theories that may question their pet views. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their choice of methods. This aid to recall may bring you up to speed more quickly and make your job simpler the second time around. I propose that a reviewer should do the honest job of taking a constructive approach to review and let the editor tackle the problem of maintaining a high rejection rate. Secondly, one should apply the same criterion to evaluate all papers for the higher purpose of safeguarding the integrity of science. Paul T. I could barely bring myself to finish it. Researchers can register for training courses, learn from leaders in research and publishing, and take part in topical debates.
The point is not to nitpick every piece of the manuscript. Be thorough. Try to answer all the questions. Are the correct references cited? At no point do you make the decision about the disposition of the manuscript.
Negative peer review example
Although authors are not mind readers, vague comments from reviewers unfortunately can force them to try it. Across all those, not a single paper has ever been accepted outright—not one. The paper might have gotten better, but not enough and the trajectory is looking relatively flat. Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes? If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary. American Psychologist, 69 6 , How to measure existential meaning.
Thus, the use of only 12 months of follow-up represents a major limitation of the current study and does not allow full evaluation of the long-term diagnostic value of IL-9 as a tumor marker for detecting recurrence. The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: The critical positivity ratio.
Journal review format
The Recommendation Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Thus, sera from patients with these 2 disorders should be tested as control populations, in addition to the healthy controls tested in this study. Comments to the editor. You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments. The point is not to nitpick every piece of the manuscript. Reconsider following revision: The paper is wounded, but savable. You do not want bad science to end up in the literature. If you need a lot of extra time, the journal might need to contact other reviewers or notify the author about the delay.
based on 111 review