The process aims to provide written feedback in the form of commentarycriticism to the author prior to the manuscripts publication. It helps ensure manuscript and journal quality.
Richard Field University of Nottingham UK.
Peer review comments. A performance review needs to be a balanced affair where as a manager or supervisor you are required to state the obvious and communicate an effective feedback to the employees. Even if you decide not to identify yourself in the review you should write comments that you would be comfortable signing your name to. The literature review was thorough the methodology was painstakingly thorough and incorporated the use of sufficient numbers of samples in dust size analysis and explosion tests.
Here well look at the basic tenets of peer review and weve provided a sample framework to help new reviewers give comments that will help authors strengthen their papers. Of course peer reviews need to be rigorous and critical but dont forget to remind authors of what they are doing right as well. After a period of time you will receive a decision letter with comments from peer reviewers and the editor.
Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments. 1 Peer reviews are intended to be impartial unbiased and so anyone asked to be a reviewer should consider before accepting whether they have any COIs. Last updated Sep 10 2020.
Of Hawaii at Manoas Writing Program. This was an excellent report on very thorough research. Some peer-reviewers are too young with limited experience not all are equally skilled in the peer-review process and very few have had a formal training and assessment methods for peer-review 1 12 13.
You act as a mirror showing the writer how the draft looks to you and pointing out areas which need attention - S. A Free Example Letter. PEQ 49 5.
The secret is to craft your performance review comments in such a manner to be specific and short and succinct without sounding on the edge. Peer reviews are featured with permission from the reviewers. Authors often receive this criticism of their manuscript out of proportion to the actual work that is required.
In your comments use phrases like the authors discussion of X instead of your discussion of X This will depersonalize the feedback and keep the focus on the manuscript. I thought the validation section of the paper was very relevant but somewhat light. Reviewer Comments and Responses Reviewer 1 comment.
Peer review involves two partsreading and evaluating the reported. Score 97 Score 97. Peer review is an extremely crucial aspect of the publication cycle.
Responding to the comments peer reviewers offer when they assess your research paper can be as challenging as writing the original manuscript especially when the necessity of revising your paper to resolve problems is considered as well. As a peer reviewer your job is not to provide answers. Peer-review is considered a biased process with identified defects 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11.
PEQ 48 5. The writer makes the choices. When it comes time to write peer review comments it can feel second nature to lean heavily towards giving criticism rather than praise.
There was clear scientific and. Write the type of review youd want to receive if you were the author. Addressing peer reviewers comments is a daunting task for even the most experienced authors.
This letter will usually let you know that either your submission has been rejected or that a revised version addressing the peer review comments should be submitted. Follow the golden rule. I think this oversimplification inhibited some deeper analysis in other areas as well.
Sean Hoban University of Tennessee USA. Once you receive reviewer comments for your submission go through them very carefully a couple of times. I would like to see more examination of the validation requirement beyond the lens of peer review and I would like a deeper examination of incentives and credit beyond citation.
When a manuscript is submitted to a peer reviewed journal if it is not rejected then it is almost inevitable that the authors will be asked to revise their manuscript before re-submission. By PhD candidate Barbara Frei McGill University Canada. Sometimes peer reviewers write long-winded comments which make it difficult to pinpoint the specific aspects you need to address.
PEQ 50 5.
