Dear Miranda:

I will say the following about the average or below average papers that I have received/reviewed as editor/reviewer:

1. The general quality of papers is not acceptable enough. Often, scholars do not revise their papers enough number of times so as to promote coherence and quality. I revise my each paper/book review 15 or more times.

2. The literature review is not done properly. It mostly looks patchy, and disjointed. There are less attempts to draw patterns from the literature.

3. The issue discussed appears one off; there is not enough attempt to knit the revelations and findings in a convincing argument.

4. There is a need to relate the findings to the existing literature, so that your paper becomes part of a larger whole and looks distinctly significant.

5. Often a good use of footnotes/end-notes is not made.

6. There are language and grammar problems as well.

7. Paragraphing is not done properly.

8. Sentence-construction also needs to be better and more scholarly.

Hope this helps

Dear Miranda,

thank you very much for this question. As written by Elsevier (your link above), there are different ways of peer-review a paper. I did, until now, the review by invitation of the Journals. It is also possible, that the authors name up to three reviewers. If those are really taken by the editior of the Journal, is never sure.

After I agree to review the paper(s), I get a short abstract with the authors name(s and topic of the paper. After that, I say yes I like to review that very paper, or no, if I am not sure I can deliver high quality review. By the way: reviewing papers in natural sciences is not payed!

The paper must be written flawless, understandable, and as much details as the reader "needs to know" must be given. One can not expect, that this is the case for relatively new scientists. Therefore, the reviewer tries to help, to improve the paper

by asking specific questions, making Figures more understandable, giving hints to papers with are important to read in addition to the ones cited, etc.

After about 2 weeks, a clear Review should be on the Editors table. In 60% its a yes with major changes to be done before publishing. Very seldom: publish as it is.

About 20% unfortunately not worth to publish.

@Frank, thanks for your answer. We, authors, just want to report plain facts and write as briefly as possible. Because my core business is my teaching and my students...

THANKS for 'The paper must be written flawless, understandable, and as much details as the reader "needs to know" must be given. One can not expect, that this is the case for relatively new scientists. Therefore, the reviewer tries to help, to improve the paper'.

Thanks Prof Kamal, for good advice :))

I like this: 'Take care of the abstract';

and this 'deliver the message of your paper in simple right way'.

Dear Miranda:

I will say the following about the average or below average papers that I have received/reviewed as editor/reviewer:

1. The general quality of papers is not acceptable enough. Often, scholars do not revise their papers enough number of times so as to promote coherence and quality. I revise my each paper/book review 15 or more times.

2. The literature review is not done properly. It mostly looks patchy, and disjointed. There are less attempts to draw patterns from the literature.

3. The issue discussed appears one off; there is not enough attempt to knit the revelations and findings in a convincing argument.

4. There is a need to relate the findings to the existing literature, so that your paper becomes part of a larger whole and looks distinctly significant.

5. Often a good use of footnotes/end-notes is not made.

6. There are language and grammar problems as well.

7. Paragraphing is not done properly.

8. Sentence-construction also needs to be better and more scholarly.

Hope this helps

I agree with Dr.Kamal and Dr.Patrick.

Rarely I have seen that all claims in the abstract is not well explained in the body.

May be that is why Dr.Kamal mentioned about "take care of the abstract"

A well background study and strong support/proofs (as mentioned by Patrick) for the new findings are always important in a research article.

Very well described @ Abdallah and Debi!

Dear friends, thanks for your views :)

@Peter, actually the reviewer knows a lot concerning constructivism theory, but on my topic, you are right: 'understand that your reviewer/reader knows nothing. You won't be far wrong.' It's RG friends like Wolfgang and Max Chartrand etc who know my stuff...

But the reviewer was smart. He didn't touch my abstract at all. I have corrected the manuscript, added more, from 12 more studies, to strengthen my paper. Thanks for all the INFO you have provided. Great link, Prof Abdalla.

Patrick is correct when he says that your writing should be short, sweet and precise - and it should be well structured, logical and argued. These are key points and also I really get turned off by poor spelling, language usage and grammar. This gets in the way of your arguments.

Thanks, Paul, for your advice.

Based on my short experience in this field, my emphasize on the methodology of the research paper. I think the methodology is the main part and backbone of the study. If methodology prepared well, other parts will be good or needs modification that is in the author ability.

@Aieman, the methodology is about the longest section :)

Thanks.

Dear Miranda, very nice to receive your request. I am a reviewer of 28 journals and I am member of the editorial board of 5 others. The magic formula does not exist, because each one has a different profile: clinical, field research, in vitro research, population survey, etc. . However, the basics that always I recommends you:

1. Seek to "develop research use" (ie , research that accrue benefits to the mankind, preferably in the short and medium term - is a new world order and I particularly agree with that;

2 . Try not to reproduce published research; efforts must not be concentrated on a subject that can be exhausted soon, without benefit to society ;

3 . The articles themselves must undergo a program (there are several free on the internet) to evaluate the possibility of plagiarism: https://www.google.com.br/ # newwindow = 1 & q = anti - plagiarism + software + free + download + mac ;

4 . Very importantly a backbone in the article: title - proposition / goals - conclusions on a coherent line ;

5 . Check what the highest number of citations in your references, choose the most cited journal by you and put the article in this journal standards. All journals need to increase the impact factor and citation securely is wide.

At the most, good luck , good job, good future.

@Vinicius, thanks very much for your advice :))

I will bear in mind what you have all shared.

You are always welcome!!!!!

Dear Miranda,

I agree with Vinícius Pedrazzi and Debi Saini !

Vinícius gives excellent advice!

@Vinicius: Thanks for the good tips.

Dear Friends, thanks for all your advice. I needed this whole day to respond to the 3 reviewers, respond to the comments on manuscript, although I had re-written the manuscript earlier. Then I attached all 4 documents in an email. The journal was responsible, one lady called me to put the reviewer comments and my responses, in a table.

I realize that the reviewers aren't paid, and I thanked them for helping me improve my paper.

Dear Miranda. Thanks for another very important topic of discussion. In my experience as author and reviewer i'd say the following:

1. I belong to the editorial board of 4 international journals and I do regular reviews for about 15 journals;

2. Tha vast majority of manuscripts I receive for review are poorly writen and non-inovative - this seems to be linked to new paradigmas that press younger researchers to publish in quantity instead of quality;

3. It is far more easier to get access to papers and comunicate with partners from all over the world -- and this is a good thing - but, this easiness when compared to the times when many of us started, decades ago, may have a byased effect while promoting a type of competition that could well lead to a low standartization of submitted research;

4. Abstracts - and in agreement with the comments above by Saini and Pedrazzi - are generaly poor while most methodologies are just "copy pasted" from previous research and less inovative;

5. Discussions and eventual conclusions are more and more often reporting the so called "need for further studies". This may mean less boldness.

6. As for conferences, I think the actual trend is for students to have a change of showing their work. This can be a good option but, more often than not, the majority of conference works do not have developments and are not followed by a peer-reviewed paper.

Finally, I'd like to add that the above comments are personal impressions and not based from properly collected data.

Still, I remain optimistic in the future and sure that younger colleagues will (and indeed many are already) proceed with excellent careers and important science contributions.

Best regards,

JP

Dear Paul o, Paul and Hanno, thank u so much for the kind words. I think RG is a very interesting tool both for increase of knowledgement and for know new friends and colleagues. I wish a great weekend to you all and your Families. Big hug, ViP

THANKS Vinicius, Joao et al. Each time I revised a manuscript, I give it my best effort! When more than 1 reviewer points out a certain requirement, I MUST definitely take heed and improve on that. And I took all the other comments seriously. So yesterday, I was flat and slept early.

Dear Vinicius, I never got round to saying thank you for your kind comments! Paul

Dear Paul, please consider me a friend for new chats. People like you are unique and kindness and education always move us toward goodness. God bless you and your family! Big hug, Vinicius

Me too have similar experience. What I look at in addition to policy set by the board is; 1- Look at title, does it reflect, what is inside the paper

2-Absatract, does it rings bell and stimulates interest

3-Over all conceptual framework

3-Deatiled Methods, materials,& conclusion

4-Does it contribute or add to existing knowledge base

5-Valid and relevant references