Your previous points should be interconnected with the later one. It must be organized and clear. The presentation of your conclusion, having focused arguments and concise details, also plays a great role in order to give fairness and reliability to your academic research. Back up your assertions with evidence from your text or work that support your claim about each point. Highlight the most significant results, but don't just repeat what you've written in the Results section.
Occasionally, there are difficulties with a potentially publishable article that I think I can't properly assess in half a day, in which case I will return the paper to the journal with an explanation and a suggestion for an expert who might be closer to that aspect of the research. I always write my reviews as though I am talking to the scientists in person. We decided to write this article in order to explain you what the research paper critique is, and how one should critique a research paper. Don't use abbreviations or citations in the abstract. Do not go for random and unnecessary details.
It should be able to stand alone without any footnotes. In the References section list citations in alphabetical order. Note that you may not care about the problem, but also ask yourself whether you can imagine some group of readers who will be interested in the solution to the problem. Popular methods vary by field, but include qualitative as well as quantitative approaches. We would all like reviewers to —and, these are the instructions I would give, too, in an ideal world. Is there another way to interpret your results? Such abstracts may also be published separately in bibliographical sources, such as Biologic al Abstracts. Biochemia Medica 2009;19 3 :223-30.
If the paper has horrendous difficulties or a confused concept, I will specify that but will not do a lot of work to try to suggest fixes for every flaw. Reviewing is a great learning experience and an exciting thing to do. Once you have this done and have asked a friendly colleague to look over it and give you feedback, you will be ready to submit the review to a good journal in your field. This may be more useful in a critique of a media item or research article. If you used animals, what measures did you take to minimize pain? Acknowledgments This document was inspired and influenced by by.
And remember that under no circumstances should you even think of doing this in order to slow a lab down so that your project can be published first. Do not put results in this section. If there are serious mistakes or missing parts, then I do not recommend publication. When reading a paper for your own enrichment, your goal is to gather information as quickly as possible. Shutterstock originally appeared on : the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.
I found that once I had made a table, the narrative of that particular research topic almost wrote itself. Journal of Unusual Results 36, 26-31. Research paper hypothesis or proposal has to be stated clearly. Most of the time is spent closely reading the paper and taking notes. Keep in mind some questions and take notes as you read. First, is it well written? While you should have already presented evidence for your claims in the body paragraphs, you should provide a short restatement of your key reasons here.
In the discussion you need to explain how the results of your research correspond to your previous research and scientific literature in your field. Many journals send the decision letters to the reviewers. In this case, you are a scientist who seeks to understand the context and content of existing work, to for example better understand how your own research might fit into the bigger picture or learn about techniques that might apply to your own work. For example, a paper might be a complete piece of work, but it might also be a survey, a tutorial, or simply a proposal. Journal editors and program committee chairs often seek the help of external reviewers if they need a particular subject-matter expert to review a paper.
Avoid being unnecessarily harsh or abusive; your criticism should be constructive in tone. In the text, cite the literature in the appropriate places: Scarlet 1990 thought that the gene was present only in yeast, but it has since been identified in the platypus Indigo and Mauve, 1994 and wombat Magenta, et al. Use appropriate methods of showing data. If the paper is a survey, your assessment should be based on the completeness of the survey, with respect to the area that the paper is claiming to summarize. Beneath their meek manners Ni-Kunnis women are just as smart and devious as their male counterparts. I try to stick to the facts, so my writing tone tends toward neutral.
Is it aimed at your fellow expert researchers in the field, whose thinking you would like to influence? All work is incremental to some degree, as everything builds on past work. I also try to cite a specific factual reason or some evidence for any major criticisms or suggestions that I make. Your labmates and collaborators also can help you with the editing process. Aim to write in a way that makes it easy to find and understand your key messages, even for skim-readers. For the correct spelling, try or one of the technical dictionaries on the reference shelf in the Biology or Health Sciences libraries. You will ask yourself this question when explaining what types of evidence or arguments are used in the work. Instead, a young scientist may learn how to review a paper under the guidance of his or her mentor, through journal clubs, or simply through trial and error.
This sentence implies that there are erythrocytes elsewhere that don't contain hemoglobin. I believe it improves the transparency of the review process, and it also helps me police the quality of my own assessments by making me personally accountable. I also carefully look at the explanation of the results and whether the conclusions the authors draw are justified and connected with the broader argument made in the paper. Queer place for qwerty: gene isolation from the platypus. This kernel is often what separates an important research contribution from a simple matter of engineering.