Overall, the paper summarizes the current state of knowledge of the topic. There are a wide variety of review styles from ones aimed at a general audience e. Instead, make notes on the margins and draw connections between different parts of the article. Authors can't see this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. Mostly I am concerned with credibility: Could this methodology have answered their question? It can be helpful to structure your internet research as if it were conducted on paper. As a reviewer, you can remark that those observations are interesting, and that you would really like to see those parts of the work further developed. The First Read-Through Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript.
Does the Paper Realize a Great Idea? Are alternative conclusions that are consistent with the data discussed and accounted for? While a research paper traditionally involves the development of a new or original thought based on existing research, a literature review is essentially an enhanced description of existing literature. After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected see the next section. The extent to which a particular approach is authoritative is often judged in terms of where it has come from. What's more, you don't then need to read any further. Some are more suitable than others. It is always easy to find reasons to reject a paper.
Would there have been a better way to test these hypotheses or to analyze these results? A systematic review systematically searches the previously published research studies for the answers to a specific question. Sometimes a member of the program committee e. These items should also receive your attention during the peer review process. Are the methods robust and well controlled? Post-peer review: Among the scientific community, there has been a growing discussion about the importance of post-peer review—community commenting on aspects of a paper after it has been published—in order to focus assessment of scientific impact to be based more on the quality of the paper itself than the prestige of the journal in which it appeared. Your review should ideally help the authors to improve the quality of their manuscript, and contribute to the overall quality of the journal. Think about it this way: the temptation is to try to include as many sources as possible, and assume that a long equates to a good paper.
Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques. What is your overall assessment of the contribution of the study to this area of research? Finally, I am more inclined to review for journals with double-blind reviewing practices and journals that are run by academic societies, because those are both things that I want to support and encourage. The process is basically the same for reviewing, except that a reviewer must be even more thorough. Crafting a Conclusion In this section, revisit the critical points of your piece, your findings of the article, and your critique. Is the sample specified and appropriate? Have they specified how they will protect the identity of their human subjects particularly a concern in genomics research? Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Does it realize a great contribution or idea? But the audience of newspaper articles or magazine articles may be more for general people with meduim-level of knowledge. Methodology If the manuscript you are reviewing is reporting an experiment, check the methods section first.
Are the methods suitable to investigate the research question and test the hypotheses? You should explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. If published in a good peer-reviewed journal, review articles often have a high impact and receive a lot of citations. My tone is very formal, scientific, and in third person. Any serious piece of research will involve concepts that are specific to the issue being investigated, or to the investigative approach that has been taken. After all research is an incomplete, on-going project by its nature. I try to be as constructive as possible.
It is easy to identify problems with a paper. Only then you should read the whole article. However, you should check the website of the journal you wish to get published in to see if they accept such articles. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. Use the formal style and narrate impersonally or from the third person, avoid the first person. It does not report original research.
A poor abstract can then lose the reader's interest and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no further. Is it aimed at people in related fields who may be venturing into a new cross-disciplinary area? Then read several opening paragraphs. Of course, the research similarities may be so great that they render the work unoriginal and you have no choice but to recommend rejection. The conclusions of the study should be consistent with the results of the analysis. The detailed reading and the sense-making process, in particular, takes a long time. I would not want to review for a journal that does not offer an unbiased review process.
Write the Body of the Paper Follow the plan you have developed above, making certain that each section links logically to the one before and after, and that you have divided your sections by themes or subtopics, not by reporting the work of individual theorists or researchers. In this case, you are a scientist who seeks to understand the context and content of existing work, to for example better understand how your own research might fit into the bigger picture or learn about techniques that might apply to your own work. How you react—and how you adapt your research or follow through on it after the acceptance or rejection —is far more important to long-term success. Write your introduction Your introduction should be the utmost laconic gist of the article under review. Decide which parts you want to put into your review. Writing Your Literature Review Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. You need not to worry.
Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. Therefore, it will discuss only that research which leads directly to your own project. This review is to summarize the essence of the article, its key arguments, and findings, and the author's attitude towards the subject-matter. . If you experience difficulties accessing the paper, you might find this video helpful.
For this purpose, avoid mentioning the information that your reader is already familiar with. Be aware that several studies have revealed implicit biases such as gender bias in peer review. You need to be confident in your assessment of whether the authors did the experiments correctly. For other data visualizations, there may be. I usually sit on the review for a day and then reread it to be sure it is balanced and fair before deciding anything. It is a good idea to do this in a systematic way to make sure that you are not cherry-picking the literature to support a pre-concieved idea or to favor the research of one particular group. However, French 1998 and Haroon 2000 found that availability of private areas is not the only aspect of the physical environment that determines residents' autonomy.