❖ Writing Short Papers

❖ Writing Short Papers If I find the paper especially fascinating , I have a tendency to offer a extra detailed evaluation as a result of I want to encourage the authors to develop the paper . My tone is one of attempting to be constructive and useful even though, of course, the authors might not agree with that characterization. My review begins with a paragraph summarizing the paper. Then I even have bullet factors for main comments and for minor feedback. And we never know what findings will quantity to in a couple of years; many breakthrough studies were not acknowledged as such for many years. So I can solely price what priority I believe the paper ought to obtain for publication today. The choice comes alongside throughout reading and making notes. If there are severe mistakes or missing components, then I don't recommend publication. I usually write down all of the issues that I seen, good and bad, so my choice doesn't affect the content and size of my evaluate. I start with a short abstract of the results and conclusions as a method to present that I have understood the paper and have a common opinion. I all the time touch upon the type of the paper, highlighting whether or not it is well written, has right grammar, and follows an accurate construction. When you ship criticism, your comments should be trustworthy but at all times respectful and accompanied with suggestions to improve the manuscript. I attempt to act as a neutral, curious reader who needs to know each element. I only make a suggestion to simply accept, revise, or reject if the journal specifically requests one. The decision is made by the editor, and my job as a reviewer is to provide a nuanced and detailed report on the paper to assist the editor. A evaluation is primarily for the good thing about the editor, to assist them attain a choice about whether or not to publish or not, but I try to make my critiques useful for the authors as properly. I all the time write my evaluations as though I am talking to the scientists in particular person. I try to be constructive by suggesting methods to enhance the problematic elements, if that's potential, and also try to hit a calm and friendly but also impartial and goal tone. This is not always straightforward, especially if I discover what I assume is a critical flaw within the manuscript. However, I know that being on the receiving finish of a evaluation is kind of tense, and a critique of something that is close to at least one’s heart can easily be perceived as unjust. I try to write my reviews in a tone and type that I might put my name to, despite the fact that reviews in my subject are usually double-blind and never signed. If there are things I wrestle with, I will counsel that the authors revise parts of their paper to make it more strong or broadly accessible. I want to give them sincere feedback of the same type that I hope to receive once I submit a paper. My evaluations are inclined to take the form of a summary of the arguments within the paper, followed by a summary of my reactions and then a sequence of the specific points that I wished to boost. Mostly, I am making an attempt to establish the authors’ claims within the paper that I didn't find convincing and guide them to ways that these points may be strengthened . Then I follow a routine that can assist me evaluate this. First, I check the authors’ publication information in PubMed to get a really feel for his or her expertise within the subject. If there's a major flaw or concern, I attempt to be trustworthy and back it up with evidence. I'm aiming to provide a complete interpretation of the quality of the paper that might be of use to both the editor and the authors. I assume lots of reviewers method a paper with the philosophy that they're there to determine flaws. But I only point out flaws if they matter, and I will make sure the review is constructive. Minor feedback might embrace flagging the mislabeling of a figure within the text or a misspelling that modifications the meaning of a standard term. Overall, I try to make feedback that might make the paper stronger. My tone may be very formal, scientific, and in third person. The review process is brutal sufficient scientifically with out reviewers making it worse. The primary elements I think about are the novelty of the article and its impression on the sector. I at all times ask myself what makes this paper related and what new advance or contribution the paper represents.