How to Review a Paper Science Aaas
As inferior scientists develop their expertise and make names for themselves, they are increasingly likely to receive invitations to review research manuscripts. Information technology's an important skill and service to the scientific community, but the learning curve tin can be particularly steep. Writing a adept review requires expertise in the field, an intimate cognition of research methods, a critical mind, the ability to give off-white and constructive feedback, and sensitivity to the feelings of authors on the receiving end. As a range of institutions and organizations effectually the world celebrate the essential role of peer review in upholding the quality of published research this week, Science Careers shares collected insights and communication about how to review papers from researchers across the spectrum. The responses have been edited for clarity and brevity.
What do y'all consider when deciding whether to accept an invitation to review a paper?
I consider four factors: whether I'1000 sufficiently knowledgeable almost the topic to offer an intelligent assessment, how interesting I find the enquiry topic, whether I'g complimentary of any conflict of involvement, and whether I accept the time. If the answer to all four questions is yep, then I'll ordinarily agree to review.
- Chris Chambers , professor of cognitive neuroscience at Cardiff Academy in the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland
I am very open-minded when information technology comes to accepting invitations to review. I see it as a tit-for-tat duty: Since I am an active researcher and I submit papers, hoping for really helpful, constructive comments, information technology but makes sense that I do the same for others. So accepting an invitation for me is the default, unless a paper is really far from my expertise or my workload doesn't allow it. The only other factor I pay attending to is the scientific integrity of the journal. I would not want to review for a journal that does not offer an unbiased review process.
- Eva Selenko , senior lecturer in piece of work psychology at Loughborough University in the Britain
I'm more than decumbent to agree to do a review if it involves a organisation or method in which I have a particular expertise. And I'thou not going to take on a paper to review unless I have the time. For every manuscript of my ain that I submit to a journal, I review at to the lowest degree a few papers, so I requite dorsum to the system enough. I've heard from some reviewers that they're more probable to accept an invitation to review from a more prestigious journal and don't feel as bad about rejecting invitations from more specialized journals. That makes things a lot harder for editors of the less prestigious journals, and that's why I am more inclined to accept on reviews from them. If I've never heard of the authors, and specially if they're from a less adult nation, then I'k also more likely to accept the invitation. 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 customs likewise deserve quality feedback. 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.
- Terry McGlynn , professor of biology at California State University, Dominguez Hills
I usually consider first the relevance to my own expertise. I will plow downwards requests if the paper is too far removed from my own research areas, since I may not be able to provide an informed review. Having said that, I tend to ascertain my expertise fairly broadly for reviewing purposes. I also consider the journal. I am more willing to review for journals that I read or publish in. Before I became an editor, I used to be adequately eclectic in the journals I reviewed for, but now I tend to be more discerning, since my editing duties take upward much of my reviewing time.
- John P. Walsh , professor of public policy at the Georgia Plant of Technology in Atlanta
In one case you've agreed to complete a review, how do you arroyo the paper?
Unless it's for a journal I know well, the first thing I exercise is bank check what format the journal prefers the review to be in. Some journals have structured review criteria; others simply ask for general and specific comments. Knowing this in advance helps relieve time later on.
I almost never print out papers for review; I prefer to piece of work with the electronic version. I always read the paper sequentially, from start to stop, making comments on the PDF as I proceed. I expect for specific indicators of inquiry quality, asking myself questions such as: Are the background literature and study rationale clearly articulated? Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous piece of work? Are the methods robust and well controlled? Are the reported analyses appropriate? (I normally pay close attending to the use—and misuse—of frequentist statistics.) Is the presentation of results clear and accessible? To what extent does the Discussion place the findings in a wider context and achieve a balance betwixt interpretation and useful speculation versus slow waffling?
- Chambers
I subconsciously follow a checklist. Commencement, is it well written? That ordinarily becomes apparent by the Methods section. (Then, throughout, if what I am reading is only partly comprehensible, I do not spend a lot of energy trying to make sense of it, but in my review I volition relay the ambiguities to the author.) I should as well have a proficient idea of the hypothesis and context within the first few pages, and it matters whether the hypothesis makes sense or is interesting. Then I read the Methods department very advisedly. I do not focus and then much on the statistics—a quality journal should have professional person statistics review for any accepted manuscript—but I consider all the other logistics of study blueprint where it's easy to hide a fatal flaw. Mostly I am concerned with brownie: Could this methodology accept answered their question? Then I await at how disarming the results are and how careful the clarification is. Sloppiness anywhere makes me worry. The parts of the Word I focus on most are context and whether the authors make claims that overreach the data. This is done all the time, to varying degrees. I want statements of fact, not opinion or speculation, backed up past data.
- Michael Callaham , emergency care dr. and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco
Most journals don't accept special instructions, so I just read the paper, usually starting with the Abstract, looking at the figures, so reading the paper in a linear fashion. I read the digital version with an open up word processing file, keeping a list of "major items" and "minor items" and making notes as I get. There are a few aspects that I make sure to address, though I comprehend a lot more than ground besides. First, I consider how the question existence addressed fits into the electric current status of our knowledge. 2nd, I ponder how well the work that was conducted actually addresses the fundamental question posed in the newspaper. (In my field, authors are nether force per unit area to broadly sell their work, and it'southward my chore equally a reviewer to accost the validity of such claims.) Third, I make sure that the blueprint of the methods and analyses are advisable.
- McGlynn
Outset, I read a printed version to go an overall impression. What is the paper about? How is information technology structured? I too pay attending to the schemes and figures; if they are well designed and organized, and then in most cases the unabridged paper has besides been advisedly thought out.
When diving in deeper, first I try to assess whether all the of import papers are cited in the references, as that likewise frequently correlates with the quality of the manuscript itself. And then, correct in the Introduction, you can frequently recognize whether the authors considered the total context of their topic. Later that, I check whether all the experiments and information make sense, paying particular attention to whether the authors advisedly designed and performed the experiments and whether they analyzed and interpreted the results in a comprehensible fashion. It is also very of import that the authors guide you through the whole article and explain every tabular array, every effigy, and every scheme.
Every bit I go along, I utilise a highlighter and other pens, so the manuscript is usually colorful later I read it. Likewise that, I make notes on an extra sail.
- Melanie Kim Müller , doctoral candidate in organic chemistry at the Technical University of Kaiserslautern in Germany
I offset familiarize myself with the manuscript and read relevant snippets of the literature to make sure that the manuscript is coherent with the larger scientific domain. Then I scrutinize it department by section, noting if at that place are any missing links in the story and if certain points are under- or overrepresented. I as well scout for inconsistencies in the portrayal of facts and observations, appraise whether the verbal technical specifications of the study materials and equipment are described, consider the adequacy of the sample size and the quality of the figures, and assess whether the findings in the principal manuscript are aptly supplemented by the supplementary department and whether the authors accept followed the periodical'south submission guidelines.
- Chaitanya Giri , postdoctoral research fellow at the Earth-Life Science Constitute in Tokyo
I print out the paper, as I notice it easier to make comments on the printed pages than on an electronic reader. I read the manuscript very carefully the first fourth dimension, trying to follow the authors' statement and predict what the next step could be. At this first phase, I try to be every bit open-minded equally I tin can. I don't have a formalized checklist, simply there are a number of questions that I by and large use. Does the theoretical argument brand sense? Does it contribute to our noesis, or is information technology old wine in new bottles? Is in that location an angle the authors have overlooked? This often requires doing some background reading, sometimes including some of the cited literature, about the theory presented in the manuscript.
I then delve into the Methods and Results sections. Are the methods suitable to investigate the research question and test the hypotheses? Would there have been a better way to exam these hypotheses or to analyze these results? Is the statistical analysis sound and justified? Could I replicate the results using the information in the Methods and the description of the analysis? I even selectively bank check individual numbers to see whether they are statistically plausible. I also carefully await at the caption of the results and whether the conclusions the authors describe are justified and connected with the broader statement fabricated in the paper. If there are any aspects of the manuscript that I am not familiar with, I attempt to read upwardly on those topics or consult other colleagues.
- Selenko
I spend a off-white amount of time looking at the figures. In addition to considering their overall quality, sometimes figures raise questions almost the methods used to collect or clarify the data, or they fail to support a finding reported in the newspaper and warrant farther clarification. I too want to know whether the authors' conclusions are adequately supported by the results. Conclusions that are overstated or out of sync with the findings will adversely impact my review and recommendations.
- Dana Boatman-Reich , professor of neurology and otolaryngology at Johns Hopkins Academy Schoolhouse of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland
I generally read on the computer and first with the Abstract to get an initial impression. So I read the paper equally a whole, thoroughly and from first to end, taking notes as I read. For me, the outset question is this: Is the inquiry sound? And secondly, how can it be improved? Basically, I am looking to see if the inquiry question is well motivated; if the data are sound; if the analyses are technically right; and, most importantly, if the findings back up the claims made in the paper.
- Walsh
The principal aspects I consider are the novelty of the article and its impact on the field. I always ask myself what makes this paper relevant and what new advance or contribution the paper represents. Then I follow a routine that will help me evaluate this. Start, I check the authors' publication records in PubMed to get a feel for their expertise in the field. I too consider whether the commodity contains a practiced Introduction and description of the state of the art, every bit that indirectly shows whether the authors take a good knowledge of the field. 2d, I pay attending to the results and whether they have been compared with other similar published studies. Third, I consider whether the results or the proposed methodology have some potential broader applicability or relevance, because in my stance this is important. Finally, I evaluate whether the methodology used is appropriate. If the authors have presented a new tool or software, I will test it in particular.
- Fátima Al-Shahrour , head of the Translational Bioinformatics Unit in the clinical research program at the Spanish National Cancer Enquiry Centre in Madrid
How practise yous go about drafting the review? Do you sign it?
Using a copy of the manuscript that I first marked up with any questions that I had, I write a cursory summary of what the paper is nigh and what I feel about its solidity. And then I run through the specific points I raised in my summary in more detail, in the guild they appeared in the paper, providing folio and paragraph numbers for most. Finally comes a list of really minor stuff, which I try to keep to a minimum. I so typically get through my first draft looking at the marked-up manuscript once again to make sure I didn't get out out anything important. If I feel there is some proficient material in the newspaper merely it needs a lot of work, I will write a pretty long and specific review pointing out what the authors demand to do. If the paper has horrendous difficulties or a dislocated concept, I will specify that just will not do a lot of work to try to propose fixes for every flaw.
I never use value judgments or value-laden adjectives. Nothing is "lousy" or "stupid," and nobody is "incompetent." However, as an writer your data might exist incomplete, or you may have disregarded a huge contradiction in your results, or you may have made major errors in the written report design. That's what I communicate, with a way to fix it if a feasible one comes to mind. Hopefully, this volition be used to brand the manuscript better rather than to shame anyone. Overall, I want to achieve an evaluation of the written report that is fair, objective, and complete enough to convince both the editor and the authors that I know something well-nigh what I'one thousand talking about. I also try to cite a specific factual reason or some evidence for whatsoever major criticisms or suggestions that I make. After all, even though you were selected as an skilful, for each review the editor has to decide how much they believe in your assessment.
- Callaham
I use annotations that I made in the PDF to start writing my review; that way I never forget to mention something that occurred to me while reading the paper. Unless the journal uses a structured review format, I usually begin my review with a full general statement of my agreement of the paper and what it claims, followed by a paragraph offer an overall cess. Then I brand specific comments on each section, listing the major questions or concerns. Depending on how much time I have, I sometimes also end with a section of small-scale comments. I may, for example, highlight an obvious typo or grammatical error, though I don't pay a lot of attention to these, as it is the authors' and copyeditors' responsibleness to ensure clear writing.
I try to be equally constructive equally possible. A review is primarily for the benefit of the editor, to help them accomplish a decision most whether to publish or not, simply I try to make my reviews useful for the authors as well. I always write my reviews as though I am talking to the scientists in person. I endeavour hard to avoid rude or disparaging remarks. The review procedure is brutal enough scientifically without reviewers making it worse.
Since obtaining tenure, I always sign my reviews. I believe it improves the transparency of the review process, and it also helps me constabulary the quality of my own assessments past making me personally accountable.
- Chambers
I want to aid the authors improve their manuscript and to assist the editor in the decision procedure by providing a neutral and balanced review of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses and how to potentially improve information technology. Afterwards I have finished reading the manuscript, I let it sink in for a solar day or then and then I try to decide which aspects actually matter. This helps me to distinguish between major and small-scale issues and also to grouping them thematically equally I draft my review. My reviews unremarkably starting time out with a brusk summary and a highlight of the strengths of the manuscript before briefly list the weaknesses that I believe should be addressed. I try to link any criticism I take either to a page number or a quotation from the manuscript to ensure that my argument is understood. I also selectively refer to others' work or statistical tests to substantiate why I think something should be washed differently.
I try to be effective past suggesting means to improve the problematic aspects, if that is possible, and also try to hit a at-home and friendly just also neutral and objective tone. This is not e'er easy, peculiarly if I find what I call up is a serious flaw in the manuscript. Notwithstanding, I know that being on the receiving end of a review is quite stressful, and a critique of something that is close to one's heart can hands exist perceived as unjust. I attempt to write my reviews in a tone and class that I could put my proper noun to, even though reviews in my field are ordinarily double-bullheaded and not signed.
- Selenko
I'chiliad 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 think a lot of reviewers approach a paper with the philosophy that they are there to identify flaws. But I only mention flaws if they matter, and I will brand sure the review is constructive. If I'1000 pointing out a trouble or concern, I substantiate it enough so that the authors tin't say, "Well, that's non correct" or "That'due south not fair." I work to be conversational and factual, and I clearly distinguish statements of fact from my own opinions.
I used to sign most of my reviews, merely I don't do that anymore. If you brand a practice of signing reviews, then over the years, many of your colleagues volition have received reviews with your proper name on them. Even if you are focused on writing quality reviews and existence fair and collegial, information technology's inevitable that some colleagues will be less than beholden nigh the content of the reviews. And if you identify a paper that you think has a substantial error that is not easily fixed, so the authors of this paper will find it hard to not hold a grudge. I've known too many junior scientists who have been burned from signing their reviews early on in their careers. And so now, I only sign my reviews so equally to be fully transparent on the rare occasions when I propose that the authors cite papers of mine, which I simply do when my piece of work will remedy factual errors or correct the merits that something has never been addressed before.
- McGlynn
My review begins with a paragraph summarizing the paper. Then I accept bullet points for major comments and for small-scale comments. Major comments may include suggesting a missing command that could brand or break the authors' conclusions or an of import experiment that would aid the story, though I try non to recommend extremely difficult experiments that would be beyond the scope of the newspaper or take forever. Minor comments may include flagging the mislabeling of a figure in the text or a misspelling that changes the meaning of a common term. Overall, I try to make comments that would make the newspaper stronger. My tone is very formal, scientific, and in third person. I'm critiquing the work, not the authors. If there is a major flaw or concern, I try to be honest and back it up with show.
- Sara Wong , doctoral candidate in cellular and molecular biological science at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
I beginning past making a bullet point list of the main strengths and weaknesses of the newspaper and so flesh out the review with details. I often refer dorsum to my annotated version of the online paper. I ordinarily differentiate between major and minor criticisms and word them as directly and concisely as possible. When I recommend revisions, I attempt to give clear, detailed feedback to guide the authors. Even if a manuscript is rejected for publication, nigh authors tin can benefit from suggestions. I try to stick to the facts, then my writing tone tends toward neutral. Before submitting a review, I enquire myself whether I would exist comfy if my identity as a reviewer was known to the authors. Passing this "identity examination" helps ensure that my review is sufficiently counterbalanced and fair.
- Boatman-Reich
My reviews tend to take the form of a summary of the arguments in the paper, followed by a summary of my reactions and so a serial of the specific points that I wanted to raise. Mostly, I am trying to identify the authors' claims in the paper that I did not find convincing and guide them to ways that these points tin be strengthened (or, peradventure, dropped as across the telescopic of what this study can support). If I find the paper especially interesting (and even if I am going to recommend rejection), I tend to give a more detailed review because I want to encourage the authors to develop the newspaper (or, perhaps, to do a new paper along the lines suggested in the review). My tone is i of trying to be constructive and helpful fifty-fifty though, of course, the authors might not agree with that characterization.
- Walsh
I attempt to act equally a neutral, curious reader who wants to sympathise every detail. If there are things I struggle with, I will suggest that the authors revise parts of their paper to make it more solid or broadly accessible. I want to requite them honest feedback of the aforementioned type that I hope to receive when I submit a paper.
- Müller
I start with a brief summary of the results and conclusions every bit a way to show that I have understood the newspaper and have a full general opinion. I e'er comment on the grade of the paper, highlighting whether it is well written, has correct grammar, and follows a correct structure. Then, I divide the review in two sections with bullet points, beginning list the most critical aspects that the authors must address to ameliorate demonstrate the quality and novelty of the newspaper and then more small points such as misspelling and figure format. When yous evangelize criticism, your comments should be honest but e'er respectful and accompanied with suggestions to improve the manuscript.
- Al-Shahrour
When, and how, do you determine on your recommendation?
I make a determination later on drafting my review. I usually sit on the review for a day then reread it to be certain it is balanced and fair before deciding anything.
- Boatman-Reich
I usually don't decide on a recommendation until I've read the entire paper, although for poor quality papers, it isn't e'er necessary to read everything.
- Chambers
I simply make a recommendation to accept, revise, or reject if the journal specifically requests i. The determination is made by the editor, and my task as a reviewer is to provide a nuanced and detailed written report on the paper to support the editor.
- McGlynn
The decision comes along during reading and making notes. If in that location are serious mistakes or missing parts, then I practice not recommend publication. I usually write downward all the things that I noticed, adept and bad, then my decision does non influence the content and length of my review.
- Müller
In my experience, near papers go through several rounds of revisions before I would recommend them for publication. Generally, if I tin meet originality and novelty in a manuscript and the study was carried out in a solid way, so I requite a recommendation for "revise and resubmit," highlighting the need for the analysis strategy, for example, to exist further developed. Withal, if the mechanism existence tested does not really provide new knowledge, or if the method and study design are of bereft quality, then my hopes for a manuscript are rather low. The length and content of my reviews generally do not relate to the event of my decisions. I ordinarily write rather lengthy reviews at the first round of the revision process, and these tend to become shorter as the manuscript then improves in quality.
- Selenko
Publication is not a binary recommendation. The fact that merely 5% of a journal's readers might always wait at a paper, for example, tin't be used equally criteria for rejection, if in fact it is a seminal paper that volition impact that field. And we never know what findings will corporeality to in a few years; many breakthrough studies were not recognized as such for many years. So I can only rate what priority I believe the newspaper should receive for publication today.
- Callaham
If the research presented in the paper has serious flaws, I am inclined to recommend rejection, unless the shortcoming can be remedied with a reasonable corporeality of revising. Also, I take the betoken of view that if the author cannot convincingly explain her study and findings to an informed reader, so the paper has non met the burden for acceptance in the journal.
- Walsh
My recommendations are inversely proportional to the length of my reviews. Short reviews translate into strong recommendations and vice versa.
- Giri
How long does information technology take you lot to review a paper?
This varies widely, from a few minutes if there is clearly a major trouble with the paper to half a day if the paper is actually interesting only there are aspects that I don't sympathize. Occasionally, there are difficulties with a potentially publishable article that I think I can't properly assess in half a solar day, in which case I volition return the newspaper to the journal with an explanation and a suggestion for an expert who might exist closer to that aspect of the enquiry.
- Nicola Spaldin , professor of materials theory at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich
It ordinarily takes me a few hours. Most of the time is spent closely reading the paper and taking notes. Once I have the notes, writing the review itself mostly takes less than an hour.
- Walsh
Information technology can take me quite a long time to write a skilful review, sometimes a full day of work and sometimes fifty-fifty longer. The detailed reading and the sense-making process, in particular, takes a long fourth dimension. Also, sometimes I find that something is not quite right just can't quite put my finger on it until I take properly digested the manuscript.
- Selenko
A few hours. I like to use two sittings, even when I am pretty sure of my conclusions. Waiting some other day always seems to improve the review.
- Callaham
Normally, a peer review takes me 1 or ii days, including reading the supporting information.
- Müller
I almost always do it in i sitting, anything from 1 to 5 hours depending on the length of the newspaper.
- Chambers
In my experience, the submission deadline for reviews usually ranges betwixt 3 working days to upwardly to 3 weeks. As a rule of thumb, I roughly devote xx% of my reviewing time to a first, overall-impression browsing of the paper; twoscore% to a second reading that includes writing up suggestions and comments; 30% to a third reading that includes checking the compliance of the authors to the journal guidelines and the proper use of subject field-typical jargon; and 10% to the last goof-proof browsing of my review. Altogether, information technology commonly takes me more than than a 24-hour interval.
- Giri
What further advice exercise you have for researchers who are new to the peer-review process?
Many reviewers are not polite enough. It's OK for a paper to say something that you don't agree with. Sometimes I will say in a review something like, "I disagree with the authors near this interpretation, but it is scientifically valid and an advisable apply of journal space for them to make this argument." If you have any questions during the review procedure, don't hesitate to contact the editor who asked yous to review the paper. Also, if you don't accept a review invitation, give her a few names for suggested reviewers, particularly senior Ph.D. students and postdocs. In my experience, they are unlikely to write a poor quality review; they might be more than likely to accept the invitation, every bit senior scientists are typically overwhelmed with review requests; and the opportunity to review a manuscript tin help support their professional evolution.
- McGlynn
The paper reviewing procedure can help you form your ain scientific opinion and develop disquisitional thinking skills. It will also provide you lot with an overview of the new advances in the field and assistance you when writing and submitting your own articles. So although peer reviewing definitely takes some try, in the cease information technology will exist worth it. Also, the periodical has invited you to review an commodity based on your expertise, but there will exist many things y'all don't know. So if y'all accept not fully understood something in the paper, practice not hesitate to ask for clarification. It will aid you lot make the correct decision.
- Al-Shahrour
Remember that a review is not most whether ane likes a certain piece of piece of work, just whether the research is valid and tells u.s. something new. Another common mistake is writing an unfocused review that is lost in the details. You can better highlight the major issues that demand to exist dealt with by restructuring the review, summarizing the of import bug upfront, or adding asterisks. I would really encourage other scientists to take upwards peer-review opportunities whenever possible. Reviewing is a cracking learning feel and an exciting affair to do. One gets to know super fresh inquiry firsthand and gain insight into other authors' statement structure. I also think information technology is our duty every bit researchers to write expert reviews. Later on all, we are all in it together. The soundness of the unabridged peer-review process depends on the quality of the reviews that nosotros write.
- Selenko
As a junior researcher, information technology may experience a footling weird or daunting to critique someone'south completed work. Just pretend that information technology's your own enquiry and figure out what experiments you would do and how you would interpret the data.
- Wong
Bear in mind that one of the most dangerous traps a reviewer tin can fall into is declining to recognize and acknowledge their own bias. To me, information technology is biased to reach a verdict on a paper based on how groundbreaking or novel the results are, for example. 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 bonny results by cherry picking. Too, I wouldn't suggest early-career researchers to sign their reviews, at to the lowest degree not until they either have a permanent position or otherwise feel stable in their careers. Although I believe that all established professors should be required to sign, the fact is that some authors can hold grudges against reviewers. Nosotros like to recall of scientists as objective truth-seekers, only we are all too human and academia is intensely political, and a powerful writer who receives a critical review from a more junior scientist could exist in a position to do swell harm to the reviewer'south career prospects.
- Chambers
Information technology is necessary to maintain decorum: One should review the newspaper justly and entirely on its merit, even if it comes from a competing enquiry group. Finally, in that location are occasions where yous get extremely heady papers that you might be tempted to share with your colleagues, but you lot accept to resist the urge and maintain strict confidentiality.
- Giri
At least early, it is a good idea to be open to review invitations so that you tin can come across what unfinished papers look like and get familiar with the review procedure. Many journals send the decision messages to the reviewers. Reading these tin requite you lot insights into how the other reviewers viewed the paper, and into how editors evaluate reviews and make decisions about rejection versus acceptance or revise and resubmit.
- Walsh
At the starting time of my career, I wasted quite a lot of free energy feeling guilty virtually existence behind in my reviewing. New requests and reminders from editors kept piling upwardly at a faster rate than I could complete the reviews and the problem seemed intractable. I solved it by making the decision to review i periodical article per week, putting a slot in my calendar for information technology, and promptly declining subsequent requests later the weekly slot is filled—or offering the side by side available opening to the editor. And now I am in the happy situation of just experiencing late-review guilt on Fri afternoons, when I nonetheless have some time ahead of me to complete the week'south review.
- Spaldin
martinezhoppled77.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/how-review-paper
0 Response to "How to Review a Paper Science Aaas"
Post a Comment