It is often advocated that research paper needs to demonstrate originality. What would be other areas that potential reviewers may be looking for in a paper?
There are several things that I look for in a paper: (1) the goal(s) of the study is(are) clearly stated, (2) the methodology used is presented in enough detail so that a reader could get a clear picture of the data and methods employed, (3) the results are presented in enough detail to allow replication, (4) the proposed study goals are supported by results, (5) the discussion and conclusion are connected to the introduction, and (6), the paper is well written.
The main thing that I would like to see in a paper is what the authors are trying to convey whether it is an extension of existing work, repeating something that is already published or completely new. That gives me the first stage of approval. Once it passes this gate, then I will look for the major strengths and weaknesses in their methodology, discussion and conclusions. If there are any discrepancies noted I can suggest them to revise accordingly. Otherwise it can be published. The last thing I look for is the English language problems if any.
There are several things that I look for in a paper: (1) the goal(s) of the study is(are) clearly stated, (2) the methodology used is presented in enough detail so that a reader could get a clear picture of the data and methods employed, (3) the results are presented in enough detail to allow replication, (4) the proposed study goals are supported by results, (5) the discussion and conclusion are connected to the introduction, and (6), the paper is well written.
If it's an empirical qualitative paper, Iwould be looking for the following: (1) the quality and relevance of the problem being treated; (2) quality and rigoour of the conceptual apparatus including clarity of the definitions and the state of knowledge in the field; (3) quality and rigour of the methodology; (4) quality and rigour of the interpretation proposed.
While reviewing a paper, I would be looking for the methodology of the paper first.
I always see two things: [1] The author accomplished what promises to present in the article? [2] The results are interesting for the journal?
When I review papers I look for three key things other than relevance/interest to the journal - 1) clarity of the research questions/objectives, 2) how well the author/s situate the research findings in the field or community of practice, and 3) clarity and strength of the argument. If the paper meets these it passes the first gate. After that I look carefully at structure and quality of the argument presented, and at the rigour of the methodology and proposed interpretation of findings. I also look for accessible writing that is not filled with jargon and technical language. Impenetrable writing puts me off.
First of all I search about it to find its originality. Then, I look for its goals and interested subjects and their inclusion in the scope of the journal. After all, its presented results and strength of arguments are important.
Dear Umesh Good Evening!! in my opinion some of the key things are(i) firstly observe that paper content relevant or not? (ii) secondly whether topic relates to research area which is important one to current applications / theoretical aspect or
practical in the sense. (iii) Abstract perfectness (iv) key words mentioned and utlliization (v) references mentioned thereof which are important to be verified while reviewing a paper.............N V Nagendram M.Sc., M.Phil., Ph.D.
Do the authors contribute to the body of knowledge with something new? New knowledge is the main question in reviewing research for publication. Each article should add to what we know, not so much what we already know.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Research Papers