How To Write A Research Paper In 6 Steps

How To Write A Research Paper In 6 Steps I always touch upon the form of the paper, highlighting whether it's nicely written, has right grammar, and follows an accurate construction. When you deliver criticism, your comments should be sincere but all the time respectful and accompanied with ideas to improve the manuscript. I try to act as a impartial, curious reader who wants to grasp each element. I solely make a suggestion to 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 supply a nuanced and detailed report on the paper to assist the editor. I begin with a brief summary of the outcomes and conclusions as a way to present that I even have understood the paper and have a common opinion. If there are things I wrestle with, I will counsel that the authors revise elements of their paper to make it more strong or broadly accessible. I wish to give them sincere feedback of the identical kind that I hope to receive once I submit a paper. My critiques are likely to take the type of a abstract of the arguments within the paper, followed by a summary of my reactions and then a sequence of the particular factors that I wanted to boost. Mostly, I am attempting to identify the authors’ claims within the paper that I didn't discover convincing and information them to ways that these points could be strengthened . But I solely mention flaws in the event that they matter, and I will ensure the review is constructive. I try to be constructive by suggesting ways to enhance the problematic features, if that's potential, and also attempt to hit a calm and friendly but also neutral and objective tone. My review begins with a paragraph summarizing the paper. Then I actually have bullet factors for major comments and for minor comments. Minor feedback could embrace flagging the mislabeling of a figure in the textual content or a misspelling that changes the that means of a standard term. The evaluate process is brutal sufficient scientifically without reviewers making it worse. The main elements I contemplate are the novelty of the article and its influence on the field. I at all times ask myself what makes this paper relevant and what new advance or contribution the paper represents. Then I comply with a routine that may help me evaluate this. First, I check the authors’ publication information in PubMed to get a feel for his or her expertise within the area. If there is a major flaw or concern, I attempt to be honest and back it up with evidence. I'm aiming to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the standard of the paper that will be of use to both the editor and the authors. I think plenty of reviewers method a paper with the philosophy that they're there to identify flaws. A evaluate is primarily for the benefit of the editor, to help them reach a decision about whether or not to publish or not, however I try to make my evaluations helpful for the authors as nicely. I all the time write my reviews as though I am talking to the scientists in particular person. If I discover the paper particularly attention-grabbing , I have a tendency to offer a extra detailed evaluation because I wish to encourage the authors to develop the paper . My tone is one of trying to be constructive and useful although, in fact, the authors may not agree with that characterization. This just isn't at all times straightforward, especially if I uncover what I suppose is a serious flaw in the manuscript. However, I know that being on the receiving end of a evaluate is sort of tense, and a critique of one thing that is shut to 1’s coronary heart can simply be perceived as unjust. I attempt to write my reviews in a tone and form that I might put my name to, despite the fact that evaluations in my field are usually double-blind and not signed. Overall, I try to make feedback that might make the paper stronger. My tone is very formal, scientific, and in third individual.