9/12/ · Hence the importance of avoiding overly synthetic advice such as “the paper is good and should be published” or “the paper is bad and should not be published”. Instead, try to discuss the merits and defects of the manuscript, clearly indicating why they are so assessed and how they express themselves in the paper An article review should include a description of the topic, main points discussed in the article, the purpose of writing, conclusions made by the writer. In the article review, you are to indicate what’s new has been stated/ revealed there. Related topics should be mentioned as well 2/23/ · Steps for Writing an Article Review Read the article carefully, taking note of words, phrases, and concepts you need to research, define, and look up meanings for. Research the terms online or at a library. Take clear notes which can be turned into paragraphs later/5
How To Write a Good And Interesting Article Review ⭐ - A Research Guide
Academic journals are nowadays the main pillar of scientific dissemination, production and funding systems. They not only serve to disseminate the ideas and findings of a given research, but, above all, to set patterns of what is a legitimate academic research and, therefore, worthy of prestige and funding. It is curious, however, that the definition of what should and should not be published depends largely on the work of an anonymous and unpaid group of people: the peer reviewers.
In the double-blind peer review system, still hegemonic in the contemporary scientific world, it is the reviewers who most influence the fate of an article. While alternative models based on open post-publication peer review preprint or later disclosure of peer identities as proposed by the PLOS ONE platform are advancing, it appears that the model based on anonymity will not be quickly abdicated.
It is noteworthy that, in this model, the reviews also are restricted to the authors how to write an academic article review the evaluated paper and journal editors.
For this reason, many scholars, especially at the beginning of their careers, are not quite confident about how to write a review. Without any pretense of exhaustion, the purpose of this post is to outline, in general terms, what a reviewer should consider before writing an assessment. These are a series of norms consolidated over the years in the editorial flow of DADOS and other social science journals, how to write an academic article review.
Since they are anonymous and private, reviews reward very little credit in terms of academic recognition. Why, then, write them up? First, a review is the main quality control instrument of scientific output and of the minimum standards of this activity. By refusing to grant a review, we are outsourcing this task to others, thus, abdicating the possibility of guaranteeing certain standards of scientific quality.
Second, providing advice is the best way to stay current on a particular field of research. Not all scholars attend every renowned congress in their discipline, but most want to have their ideas published.
It is also common for neophytes in a thematic area to make efforts to publish their research. Hence the relevance of reviews as a way of accessing the freshest on a topic.
This means that as authors we expect our peers to be diligent in their evaluations and, therefore, we should be reciprocal. Moreover, it is usual for editors to follow the papers of their most effective reviewers with greater diligence and speed. Fourth, several systems for evaluating scientific output have incorporated the quality and quantity of review in their metrics. The ScholarOne flow management system, used by many journals, has a module that allows editors to rate reviews and rank reviewers.
Some areas of CAPES also consider the review productivity in their scale, how to write an academic article review. Especially since the building of the PLOS ONE platform, based on data from thousands of reviews, it is likely that this activity will be increasingly recognized and studied. In general, each reviewer is given one month to write their assessment. However, the important thing is to inform editors as soon as possible on your availability, i.
Therefore, it is mostly recommended to accept the task and request more time to perform it than to postpone it indefinitely. The academic routine can indeed be strenuous and, in most cases, it leads to delays in tasks with less tangible rewards. Although there is a wide range of the time each scholar devotes to his or her different activities, it is reasonable to assume that he or she writes a review once every two months, on average, how to write an academic article review.
But even where it is in fact impossible to heed an invitation to write a review, reviewers may be helpful by referring other colleagues and experts to perform the task. Therefore, even if unavailable to write a review, the suggestion of other names is welcome.
How to write an academic article review good review is one capable of summarizing the characteristics, qualities and flaws of a given academic manuscript taking into account the parameters of a given journal, in order to support the decision of its publication or not by the editors.
It should be pointed out that the reviews are subsidies to the editorial decision and not the decision itself. Instead, try to discuss the merits and defects of the manuscript, clearly indicating why they are so assessed and how they express themselves in the paper.
It is also recommended that the referee indicates ways for improvement, suggests references and highlights unclear passages. To approve: The paper could be published as how to write an academic article review is, how to write an academic article review, requiring at most a few spelling and grammar revisions, none on the content or structure. To approve with minor revisions: The paper requires only a few revisions, which in theory can be easily performed by the authors. This how to write an academic article review issues of form, lack of some reference, or an unclear argument or excerpt.
Nevertheless, it is understood that the paper should be published. Although not mandatory, it is also understood that the reviewer is open to re-evaluate a second version of the manuscript, if it happens to be resubmitted. To approve with major revisions: The paper requires deeper revisions, but nothing that requires a drastic restructuring.
This encompasses more general issues, lack of several relevant references and many unclear arguments. In any case, it is understood that the paper should be published and that the outcome it produced need not be redone.
To reject and resubmit: In order for the paper to become publishable and to contribute to its thematic area, its objectives and structure must be substantively modified.
This decision assumes that the paper demands profound changes, but that its original intent is viable, legitimate and may result in substantive contributions in the future, hence the incentive for resubmission.
Although not mandatory, it is understood that the reviewer is open to re-evaluate a second version, although that may be resubmitted to new reviewers. To reject: In order for the paper to become publishable and to contribute to its subject area, its objectives and structure must be completely modified. Strictly speaking, the vast majority of manuscripts submitted to a quality journal are rejected. Also remember that your decision is not final, it is up to the editor to ratify, moderate or complement it.
In real life, however, it is common for the topic, style and approach of a given paper to suggest the reviewer its authorship. When this kind of suspicion occurs, the reviewer should assess the extent to which a potential conflict of interest exists, i. Further details on potential conflicts of interest how to write an academic article review ethics of scientific assessment can be obtained from the FAPESP Code of Good Scientific Practice 1.
FUNDAÇÃO DE AMPARO À PESQUISA DO ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO. Code of good scientific practice [online]. FAPESP: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo. Luiz Augusto Campos is a professor of Sociology and Political Science at IESP-UERJ and editor-in-chief of DADOS, one of the leading Brazilian social science journals, published for over fifty years. Translated from the original in Portuguese by Lilian Nassi-Calò. Your email address will not be published. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
All the contents of this site, how to write an academic article review, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License. The posts are of the authors responsibility and don't necessarily convey the opinions of the SciELO Program.
org blog. scielo scielo. Home News Analysis Interviews Documents Newsletter About. Português English Español. Home COVID News Analysis Methodology Interviews Newsletter Subscribe Editorial team Issues About. How to write an academic review? By Luiz Augusto Campos Image: Keith JJ.
CAMPOS, L. SciELO in Perspective[viewed ]. Posted in: AnalysisTagged: Editorial ProfessionalizationEthics in Scholarly CommunicationPeer reviewScholarly Communication. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Search Search for:. Text size. Facebook SciELO Network. Press Releases Research Evaluates Color Stability in Tilapia Filets April 16, Ciência Rural Serum calcitonin levels shows more sensitivity than cytopathology for the medullary thyroid cancer diagnosis April 14, Daniela Barros The guide for writing qualitative research reports — COREQ is now available in Portuguese April 9, Acta Paulista de Enfermagem New issue of Manuscrito invites us to consider a genuinely dynamic ontology: Process Metaphysics April 6, Matheus Valente About the darkness of science or where do the negative results of the research go?
March 25, Transinformação. Recent Posts Early Reports and the new policy of the Web of Science Journal Impact Factor It takes a global village or a recap of NISO Plus Grim perspectives for Brazilian periodicals [Originally published as the editorial in Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências vol. Recent Comments O quão efetivos são os mandatos de financiadores para o acesso aberto? Tags Altmetric Article Processing Charge - APC Audio Bibliometrics Communication Policy Creative Commons Digital preservation Dissemination of Information eBooks Editorial Professionalization Ethics in Scholarly Communication Events Gold Route Green Route Impact Factor Internationalization International Organization Open Access Open Data Open Peer Review Open Science ORCID Peer review Preprint Public Policies Reproducibility Research Evaluation Research Funding Agency Research Policy Scholarly Communication SciELO 15 Years SciELO 20 Years SciELO Network SciELO Program SciELO South Africa SciELO How to write an academic article review Science Communication Social Networks Sustainability São Paulo City The future of Peer review.
Subscribe to our notification services, how to write an academic article review.
How to write an review article ? Definition, structure and step wise Tutorials
, time: 14:17How to Write an Article Review: Full Guide with Examples | EssayPro
An article review should include a description of the topic, main points discussed in the article, the purpose of writing, conclusions made by the writer. In the article review, you are to indicate what’s new has been stated/ revealed there. Related topics should be mentioned as well 2/23/ · Steps for Writing an Article Review Read the article carefully, taking note of words, phrases, and concepts you need to research, define, and look up meanings for. Research the terms online or at a library. Take clear notes which can be turned into paragraphs later/5 9/12/ · Hence the importance of avoiding overly synthetic advice such as “the paper is good and should be published” or “the paper is bad and should not be published”. Instead, try to discuss the merits and defects of the manuscript, clearly indicating why they are so assessed and how they express themselves in the paper
No comments:
Post a Comment