Qualitative research papers sometimes receive unexpected and/or unusual reviews. What common grounds, do you think, are there to review such papers?
Haji - for me - a clear rationale and justification for the adopted methodology and a clear 'trustworthiness' rigour trail - especially in relation to design aspects - such as data analysis frameworks.
As a reviewer, what key areas would you like to see in a qualitative research paper?
Following should be visible & articulated in a qualitative research paper:
The guidelines/views as per the following papers may further help:
- Davidson, A. J. and Carlin, J. B. (2008) Review article: What a reviewer wants, Pediatric Anesthesia, 18, 12, pp. 1149-1156.
- Ortinau, D. J. (2011) Writing and publishing important scientific articles: A reviewer's perspective, Journal of Business Research, 64, 2, pp. 150-156.
- Patton, M. Q. (2003) Qualitative evaluation checklist, The Evaluation Checklist Project: Western Michigan University, The Evaluation Centre.
- Rocco, T. S. (2003) Shaping the future: Writing up the method on qualitative studies, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 3, pp. 343-349.
- Rocco, T. S. (2010) Editorial: Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies, Human Resource Development International, 13, 4, pp. 375-378.
- Shankar, P. R. (2012) What do reviewers look for in an original research article?, Journal of the Nepal Medical Association, 52, 186, pp. 95-101.
Haji Karim Khan. Thank you for your questions. The reviewers of qualitative research usually look at the design of the study, the validity of methods used, the language used matches the qualitative research standards, how the data were interpreted and presented, the discussion and evidence showed, alignment of the different parts of the paper, and the conclusion made.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Qualitative Research