This is why the section is called "Literature Cited" instead of "References" or "Bibliography". Ask yourself honestly whether this paper falls within the scope of your expertise. Third, I make sure that the design of the methods and analyses are appropriate.
The purpose is typically to succinctly identify what new is known because of the study and to state its significance and implications in the context of the wider literature and situation.
Once I have the notes, writing the review itself generally takes less than an hour. Male sterility in plants is generally associated with the lack of production of viable pollen; however its expression can vary Frankel and GalunKaul First, is it well written?
Salt Tolerance in Phaseolus vulgaris. For the staining of F-actin, cells were washed and suspended in Rh-ph solution Molecular Probes, Inc.
Elizabeth Wager for her helpful thoughts and resources on this subject. Your review should ideally help the authors to improve the quality of their manuscript, and contribute to the overall quality of the journal. The only other factor I pay attention to is the scientific integrity of the journal.
Introduce the terms you use and give preference to established definitions and uses. The act of submitting a manuscript is becoming increasingly onerous with more attachments and supporting documents required.
One should review the paper justly and entirely on its merit, even if it comes from a competing research group. In other experiments, segments were preincubated for 1 h in small petri dishes containing 1 mM IAA solution, and then raphanusanin B was added to the medium final concentrations 1 or 3 mM.
Cytokinins, gibberellins, auxins and abscisic acid, as well as polyamines, are all known to affect pollen and stamen development in a number of species e.
The length and content of my reviews generally do not relate to the outcome of my decisions. The review process is brutal enough scientifically without reviewers making it worse.
Since factors such as dense ground cover may suppress seedling emergence regardless of the amount of seed predation Harperadditional studies are needed to clarify the effect of seed predation on seedling emergence.
Journal clubs are an excellent way to improve your critical reading skills, as well as help from your mentor.
Cytokinins in a genic male sterile line of Brassica napus. So be clear, precise, and compelling! Do not repeat extensively in the text the data you have presented in tables and figures.
I also pay attention to the schemes and figures; if they are well designed and organized, then in most cases the entire paper has also been carefully thought out. This section may also include background information about the problem such as a summary of any research that has been done on the problem in the past and how the present experiment will help to clarify or expand the knowledge in this general area.
I usually differentiate between major and minor criticisms and word them as directly and concisely as possible. If well-known methods were used without changes, simply name the methods e. Basically, I am looking to see if the research question is well motivated; if the data are sound; if the analyses are technically correct; and, most importantly, if the findings support the claims made in the paper.
Then, I divide the review in two sections with bullet points, first listing the most critical aspects that the authors must address to better demonstrate the quality and novelty of the paper and then more minor points such as misspelling and figure format.
The scientific community demands a lot from our reviewers. If you believe that the data require the review of a statistical expert or another kind of expertrecommend it to the editor. A major goal of plant ecology is to explain spatial variation in a species frequency of occurrence.
The method that you will follow is the "author-date" system. DISCUSSION Here, the researcher interprets the data in terms of any patterns that were observed, any relationships among experimental variables that are important and any correlations between variables that are discernible.
Three-dimensional reconstruction from serial sections. 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.
I want statements of fact, not opinion or speculation, backed up by data. I try to write my reviews in a tone and form that I could put my name to, even though reviews in my field are usually double-blind and not signed. In any of the above cases, the reader would be forced to read more of the paper to understand what the researcher had done.
Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous work? If the authors have presented a new tool or software, I will test it in detail. BMC Medicine4: Then I scrutinize it section by section, noting if there are any missing links in the story and if certain points are under- or overrepresented.
Spatial variation in seed predation is well documented e.How to Write Papers By Jamie Bartram, with inspiration from Fran DiGiano Choosing a Journal Reflect on which journal you want to target ideally before writing and definitely early on.
You may want the highest impact factor but read your target journal’s editorial policy (e.g. On types of papers accepted and their target subject matters); [ ]. GUIDELINES FOR WRITING SCIENTIFIC PAPERS The reviewing process 10 H) Resources 4 WRITING AND PUBLISHING SCIENTIFIC PAPERS Poor writing is one of the principal reasons why many scientific papers are rejected by reviewers.
Water South Africa Water SA Wildlife Monographs Wildlife Monogr a guide to writing scientific papers Scientific experiments are demanding, exciting endeavors, but, to have an impact, results must be communicated to others. A research paper is a method of communication, an attempt to tell others about some specific data that you have gathered and what you think those data mean in the context of your research.
Peer review is at the heart of the scientific method. Its philosophy is based on the idea that one’s research must survive the scrutiny of experts before it is presented to the larger scientific community as worthy of serious consideration.
By this point, you will probably have read the entirety of the paper several times. Is the writing. This page features a discussion of each of the following components of writing a scientific review article: Choosing a topic and finding articles; If you need to write a review article but don't know where to start, keep some of these tips in mind.
What is the thesis or problem being addressed in this paper? How to review a paper. It’s an important skill and service to the scientific community, but the learning curve can be particularly steep. Writing a good review requires expertise in the.Download