executives at Elsevier, one of the largest academic publishers in the world. That usually becomes apparent by the Methods section. It is described here: ml, your comments and suggestionswould be welcome. Selenko 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 even selectively check individual mill numbers to see whether they are statistically plausible. Mostly I am concerned with credibility: Could this methodology have answered their question? Why should people pay 31 to read individual papers when they could get them for free if they were published by jmlr? I know all about the issues related to how difficult it is to find quality peer reviewers. I have to say the current fracas is propelling me further in that direction (and I am by no means alone in this see here and here ). Giri How long does it take you to review a paper? I usually sit on the review for a day and then reread it to be sure it is balanced and fair before deciding anything. So I can only rate what priority I believe the paper should receive for publication today. If I'm pointing out a problem or concern, I substantiate it enough so that the authors cant say, Well, that's not correct or That's not fair. . If you have any questions, I would be more than willing to answer them. Is there an angle the authors have overlooked? I am not looking for a shouting match but we need more dialogue between all parties to move the relationship forward, even if that sometimes involves difficult arguments or refusals to co-operate. 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. Of course, many have already done so; I am playing catch-up here but so are many of my colleagues, which is why I wanted to think through these issues in the open. Third, I consider whether the results or the proposed methodology have some potential broader applicability or relevance, because in my opinion this is important. Since obtaining tenure, I always sign my reviews. I always ask myself what makes this paper relevant and what new advance or contribution the paper represents. 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.
How to invite people to review paper: Nichijou rock paper scissors
BoatmanReich I usually dont decide on a people recommendation until Ive read the entire paper. Unless its for a journal I know well. Then, there are a few aspects that I make review sure to address. Even if a manuscript is rejected for publication. I will suggest that the authors revise parts of their paper to make it more solid or broadly accessible. Many journals send the decision letters to the reviewers. Right in the Introduction, although for poor quality papers, finally.
Comedk sample papers
Civil paper presentation How to invite people to review paper
Is the presentation of results clear and accessible. M sufficiently knowledgeable thesis about the topic to offer an intelligent assessment. The authors might not agree craft with that characterization. Are the methods suitable to investigate the research question and test the hypotheses.
I hope this provides you with some background regarding our standpoint in this issue.I do this because editors might have a harder time landing reviewers for these papers too, and because people who aren't deeply connected into our research community also deserve quality feedback.Also, I wouldnt advise early-career researchers to sign their reviews, at least not until they either have a permanent position or otherwise feel stable in their careers.