Write The Paper First

Write The Paper First I try to act as a neutral, curious reader who wants to understand every detail. If there are issues I battle with, I will counsel that the authors revise parts of their paper to make it extra solid or broadly accessible. I wish to give them sincere feedback of the identical kind that I hope to obtain after I submit a paper. My reviews are inclined to take the form of a summary of the arguments in the paper, followed by a abstract of my reactions after which a series of the particular points that I wanted to boost. If the research presented within the paper has critical flaws, I am inclined to recommend rejection, except the shortcoming may be remedied with an inexpensive amount of revising. Also, I take the viewpoint that if the writer can not convincingly explain her research and findings to an informed reader, then the paper has not met the burden for acceptance in the journal. So I can solely rate what priority I believe the paper ought to receive for publication at present. The choice comes alongside throughout studying and making notes. I start with a quick summary of the results and conclusions as a method to show that I actually have understood the paper and have a common opinion. I all the time touch upon the form of the paper, highlighting whether or not it is properly written, has right grammar, and follows a correct construction. When you ship criticism, your feedback should be trustworthy but at all times respectful and accompanied with suggestions to enhance the manuscript. Minor comments may include flagging the mislabeling of a figure within the text or a misspelling that modifications the that means of a typical term. Overall, I attempt to make comments that may make the paper stronger. My tone could be very formal, scientific, and in third individual. If there's a main flaw or concern, I try to be trustworthy and back it up with proof. I'm aiming to supply a complete interpretation of the quality of the paper that will be of use to each the editor and the authors. The proven fact that solely 5% of a journal’s readers may ever have a look at a paper, for example, can’t be used as standards for rejection, if actually it's a seminal paper that can influence that field. And we by no means know what findings will amount to in a couple of years; many breakthrough research were not recognized as such for a few years. I suppose lots of reviewers approach a paper with the philosophy that they're there to determine flaws. But I solely point out flaws in the event that they matter, and I will make sure the evaluate is constructive. I attempt to be constructive by suggesting methods to enhance the problematic features, if that's possible, and in addition attempt to hit a calm and friendly but additionally impartial and goal tone. This just isn't all the time straightforward, particularly if I uncover what I suppose is a critical flaw within the manuscript. If there are severe errors or lacking parts, then I do not recommend publication. I normally write down all the issues that I observed, good and unhealthy, so my choice doesn't influence the content and length of my review. I solely make a suggestion to accept, revise, or reject if the journal particularly requests one. The determination 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. My tone is one of making an attempt to be constructive and helpful despite the fact that, after all, the authors may not agree with that characterization. My evaluation begins with a paragraph summarizing the paper. Then I have bullet points for major feedback and for minor comments. Mostly, I am trying to establish the authors’ claims in the paper that I did not find convincing and guide them to ways in which these factors can be strengthened . If I find the paper especially interesting , I tend to offer a extra detailed evaluate as a result of I need to encourage the authors to develop the paper . I almost all the time do it in a single sitting, anything from 1 to 5 hours relying on the size of the paper. This varies extensively, from a couple of minutes if there is clearly a significant downside with the paper to half a day if the paper is basically interesting however there are features that I don't understand.