Can You See in Review for a Journal Submission
How to carry a review
1- Before you begin
Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:
- Does the commodity match your area of expertise? Merely accept if you feel you lot tin provide a high-quality review.
- Do y'all take a potential disharmonize of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
- Do y'all have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure y'all can encounter the deadline.
- Do you need to observe out more nigh reviewing and the peer review process? If and so, cheque out the complimentary tutorials on the Elsevier Researcher Academy, especially the Certified Peer Reviewer course.
Respond to the invitation as soon as you tin (fifty-fifty if it is to decline) – a filibuster in your decision slows down the review procedure and ways more than waiting for the writer. If you do decline the invitation, it would exist helpful if you could provide suggestions for culling reviewers.
2- Managing your review
Confidential material
If you accept, you must treat the materials you lot receive as confidential documents. This means you lot can't share them with anyone without prior say-so from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, yous also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.
How to log in and access your review
Your review will exist managed via an Elsevier submission system such as Editorial Manager. Elsevier journals utilise different submission systems so there is no 1 generic login link.
To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation electronic mail you lot received which volition bring you to the submission/reviewing arrangement.
Article- and journal-specific instructions
When you lot sit to write the review, make sure you familiarize yourself with any periodical-specific guidelines (these will be noted in the journal'due south guide for authors available on each journal's homepage).
Some journals require reviewers to answer specific questions most the manuscript instead of preparing a full review study. If the journal in question does not require you lot to answer to a list of specific questions, y'all might find it helpful to consider the below points before preparing your comments to the editor/author(s):
Full length research commodity
- Examine the importance of the research question addressed in the manuscript (e.m., are objectives and justification clearly stated?).
- Assess the originality (contribution, addition of noesis to scientific literature or field) of the manuscript.
- Clearly identify the strengths and weaknesses of the method described in the manuscript.
- Make specific useful comments on the writing of the manuscript (due east.g., writing, organization, figures, etc.).
- Offering specific comments on the writer'due south interpretation of the results and conclusions drawn from the results.
- In case applicable, comment on the statistics (for instance question if they are robust and fit-for-purpose and if the controls and sampling mechanisms are sufficient and well described).
Review article
- Discuss the importance of the topic/telescopic of the review.
- Appraise the originality of the review.
- Comment on the writer'south representation of the most relevant recent advances in the field. Specifically, determine whether the references are relevant to the topic and cover both historical literature and more recent developments.
- Offer comments on the writing, organization, tables, and figures of the manuscript.
- Comment on the writer's interpretation of the results.
In any example, your first task is to read the article. You might consider spot checking major issues by choosing which section to read commencement. Below we offer some tips almost handling specific parts of the paper.
Methodology
If the manuscript you are reviewing is reporting an experiment, check the methods section first. The post-obit cases are considered major flaws and should be flagged:
- Unsound methodology
- Discredited method
- Missing processes known to be influential on the area of reported research
- A decision drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript
For analytical papers examine the sampling written report, which is mandated in time-dependent studies. For qualitative research make sure that a systematic information assay is presented and sufficient descriptive elements with relevant quotes from interviews are listed in addition to the author's narrative.
Assess manuscripts for inclusion of sex-disaggregated data and gender assay. Information technology could well be that the study was not designed to analyze sex and/or gender. Even so, nosotros recommend referees to consider if sex and gender are relevant to the topic of the written report, and whether the study follows relevant guidelines, wherever applicable.
As a full general principle, the SAGER guidelines recommend careful employ of the words "sexual activity" and "gender" in lodge to avert confusing both terms. The use of common definitions will improve the ability to conduct meta-analyses of published and archived data. The term "sex activity" should exist used every bit a classification of male or female based on biological distinction to the extent that this is possible to confirm. Per Heidari et al.: "Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours and identities of female, male and gender-diverse people . It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they behave and interact and the distribution of power and resource in social club. Gender is ordinarily incorrectly conceptualized as a binary (female/ male) gene. In reality, there is a spectrum of gender identities and expressions defining how individuals identify themselves and express their gender."
Please bank check if authors take underlined in the methods section whether the sexual practice of participants was divers based on cocky-report or assigned following external or internal test of trunk characteristics, or through genetic testing or other ways. In studies of animals, the term "sex" should be used. In cell biological, molecular biological or biochemical experiments, the origin and sex activity chromosome constitutions of cells or tissue cultures should be stated. If unknown, the reasons should be stated. In other disciplines, such as the testing of devices or technology, authors should explicate whether it will exist applied or used by all genders and if it has been tested with a user's gender in mind. Please check whether the authors take done due diligence and reported any previous studies in the introductions that reveal or refute potential sex activity or gender differences, and the rationale why they take or take not examined these aspects in their report.
If the study included only one sex/gender, ensure this has been justified. If the report included more than 1 sexual activity/gender, ensure data are reported for all the options that were recorded and that data disaggregated by sex/gender are reported in full, in the main text or in the appendix or supplementary materials. Information technology is important to assess whether the methodology is appropriate to capture possible sex and gender aspects. Equally a peer reviewer y'all may request sub-group analysis if deemed necessary and check if all data are provided disaggregated past sex activity, as a minimum.
Finally, please also pay attending to whether authors take clearly justified in the discussion section any limitation of their study due to lack of any sex- and gender-based analysis and/or the implications on the generalizability and interpretation of their findings in light of that. It could be that the study was non designed to clarify sex and/or gender, nevertheless, it is important to consider if sexual practice and gender are relevant to the topic of the report, and whether the study follows relevant guidelines, wherever applicative.
Research data and visualizations
Once you are satisfied that the methodology is sufficiently robust, examine any data in the form of figures, tables, or images. Authors may add research information, including data visualizations,to their submission to enable readers to interact and engage more closely with their research subsequently publication. Please exist aware that links to information might therefore be present in the submission files. These items should too receive your attention during the peer review process. Manuscripts may also incorporate database identifiers or accession numbers (due east.thousand. genes) in relation to our database linking plan.
Critical bug in research data, which are considered to be major flaws can be related to insufficient data points, statistically non-significant variations and unclear data tables.
NB for certain types of visualization, preview tools are bachelor, allowing you lot to audit how files will display on ScienceDirect if the manuscript is accepted. For other data visualizations, there may be other ways of inspecting the files.
Ethical considerations
Experiments including patient or animal data should properly be documented. Nearly journals crave ethical approval by the author's host organization. Please bank check journal-specific guidelines for such cases (bachelor from the journal'south homepage, accessible via the journal catalogue.
Overview
If you don't spot any major flaws, take a break from the manuscript, giving you lot fourth dimension to remember. Consider the article from your own perspective. When you sit downwards to write the review, again make certain you familiarize yourself with any journal-specific guidelines (these will be noted in the journal'south guide for authors).
3. Structuring your review
Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. It volition also aid the writer and allow them to amend their manuscript. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any ad hominem remarks or personal details including your proper noun (unless the periodical y'all are invited to review for employs open peer review).
Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your sentence and so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should point whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence.
Checklist
The journal for which you are reviewing might have a specific format (east.g., questionnaire) or other instructions for how to construction your feedback. Below are some general tips on what to include/consider if no other guidelines apply. View the checklist hither.
Hither is an example of a published peer review written report.
Your recommendation
When y'all make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article:
- Reject (explain your reasoning in your report)
- Accept without revision
- Revise – either major or minor (explicate the revision that is required, and bespeak to the editor whether you would exist happy to review the revised article). If you are recommending a revision, you must replenish the author with a articulate, sound explanation of why this is necessary.
Acquit in mind that in that location volition be the opportunity to straight separate comments to both the editor and writer. Once you lot are ready to submit your report, follow the instructions in the email or visit our support center if yous encounter any difficulties.
Access the support center for further aid
The final decision
The editor ultimately decides whether to have or reject the commodity. Elsevier plays no role in this decision. The editor volition counterbalance all views and may call for another opinion or inquire the author for a revised paper before making a determination. The submission system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision, if the journal has opted in to this functionality.
four. After your review
Once yous have delivered your review, you lot might want to make employ of Elsevier's Reviewer Hub to ensure that y'all receive credit for your work. The platform provides a individual profile folio, certificates, editor recognition as well as discounts for Elsevier services.
Do not forget that, even afterwards finalizing your review, y'all must treat the article and whatsoever linked files or data every bit confidential documents. This means you must not share them or information about the review with anyone without prior authority from the editor.
Finally, we take the opportunity to thank you sincerely on behalf of the journal, editors and author(s) for the time you have taken to give your valuable input to the commodity.
Source: https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/how-to-review
Publicar un comentario for "Can You See in Review for a Journal Submission"