Reviewing manuscripts of articles is usually not taught and most early or mid career researchers find it difficult. I ask for suggestions on this in order to allow the starters to have the opportunity to contribute to the scientific community and participate in the scholarly discourse thereby improving themselves.
The set of standards described by Michael Uebel are much more detailed than anything I have seen in social science reviews. The criteria listed all relevant, but I cannot see any reason to address each of them. Instead, I would say that if any of them are problematic, then that should be pointed out in the review.
At a more general level, I always consider two primary concerns when I review a paper. First, is the topic of this research an addition to the field? This should be addressed in the Introduction and Background sections, and then returned to in the Discussion and Conclusions. My second questions is whether the research is well done, which is primarily an issue for the Methods and Results sections. Overall, I want a paper to address a meaningful question and use an appropriate way to answer that question.
Is it ethically acceptable to refer the manuscript's author(s) to a paper you published, as the reviewer, if it's in the same research area?
Actually, I agree with Michael Uebel about the need to view a potential article's contributions and research questions within the context of the field that it addresses. For me, that is what I consider when I judge whether the paper addresses a "meaningful" question, since it has to be meaningful to someone, and that someone is the audience that the author wants to address. As a reviewer, I am almost always a member of some portion of that field, either as an expert on substance or methods. So, my rating reflects the issue of "meaningful for whom?" -- and answer is for those who are engaged in the current conversation around the topics being addressed.
One problem with this approach is its conservative tendency, since it tends to preserve the values of those who are acknowledged experts in a field. Other than trying to be as open to new ideas as possible, I'm afraid this is an unavoidable aspect of peer review.
I want to add a little contribution to Michael Uebel, David L Morgan and Katherine Bischoping excellent suggestions. Does it contain updated references? Do the authors covered the "state-of-the-art" within their research area to write the literature review?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts