If you decide not to identify yourself in the review, you should writeĬomments that you would be comfortable signing your name to. Type of review you’d want to receive if you were the author. If you’ve ever had your own work reviewed, you already know that it’s Providing constructive and critical feedback that the authors can use Is not to nitpick every piece of the manuscript. Remember that your ultimate goal is to discuss what theĪuthors would need to do in order to qualify for publication. Giving effective feedback can be even moreĬhallenging. Get this outline in a template Giving Feedback Willing to look at a revised version of the manuscript.ĭo not use this space to critique the manuscript, since comments entered here will not be passed along to the authors. If you’re not sure what should go in the confidential comments, read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal first before submitting your review. If you are reviewing for a journal that does not offer a space for confidential comments, consider writing to the editorial office directly with your concerns. Any serious issues shouldīe raised directly and immediately with the journal as well.ĭisclose any potentially competing interests, and mention whether you’re Mention concerns about the submission that you’d want the editors toĬonsider before sharing your feedback with the authors, such as concernsĪbout ethical guidelines or language quality. To enter confidential comments about the manuscript.
Any other points Confidential comments for the editors Typos, spelling, grammar, and phrasing issuesģ.Data presentation (e.g., the authors should present p-values differently).Technical clarifications (e.g., the authors should clarify how a reagent works).Missing references (but depending on what is missing, this could also be a major issue).Here are some examples of what would might go in the “minor” category: Minor issues are still important but typically will not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript.
In other words, it’s not helpful to recommend additional work that would be considered the “next step” in the study. Make sure you focus on what is fundamental for the current study. What’s the difference between a major and minor issue? Major issues should consist of the essential points the authors need to address before the manuscript can proceed. Refer to specific lines, pages, sections, or figure and table numbers so the authors (and editors) know exactly what you’re talking about. Number each item so that your points are easy to follow (this will also make it easier for the authors to respond to each point).
Within each section, you can talk about the biggest issues first or go systematically figure-by-figure or claim-by-claim. It’s helpful to divide this section into two parts: one for major issues and one for minor issues. Discussion of specific areas for improvement End this section with your recommended course of action. Think about this as your “take-home” message for the editors. Give an overview of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. This shows the editor how you interpreted the manuscript and will highlight any major differences in perspective between you and the other reviewers. In your own words, summarize what the manuscript claims to report. Summary of the research and your overall impression
0 kommentar(er)
