Thank You Maytham for this interesting and important question. From my observations a common characteristics of the most cited articles are they have a very clear, logical and direct to the point argument.
Originality, the use of modern techniques and models in research work, bold and objective discussion and presentation of results.
Relevancy of the topic and quality of the research behind the publication.
My understanding is :
Clarity - with experiments and result analysis , nope graphs do not help all the time . You need to write the story behind it :(
Your theories have to be , "Have to be " supported by the equations , experiments and results (well 1 to 1 ) . At least I follow !!!
I do not cook up #s and I want good explanation for arriving at those #s (NO EXCUSE !!!)
It depends Maytham , sometimes reviewers who do not have any grass-root level understanding will review and trust me , it is haaaaaaaard to please such individuals !!!
Originality of ideas
Clear research gap
SMART objectives/research questions
Sound and robust methodology
Comprehensive, logical and well structured discussions
Theoretically and philosophically fine tuned into the larger picture in the field of research
Tentative conclusions and feasible recommendations
Well, Refereed journals have their own criterion to follow when you serve as an external reviewer. Generally speaking here is a link to 12 critical points to follow when you condcut the review process:
https://publons.com/blog/how-to-critically-evaluate-a-manuscript-12-questions-you-should-always-ask-yourself/
Briefly: here are the 12 critical points:
1. Do you have a conflict of interest when reviewing this paper? Do you collaborate with these authors, are they your personal friends, or are they direct competitors? Have you reviewed (and rejected) this paper before? If so, you need to let the editors know. 2. Do the title and abstract cover the main aspects of the work, would it spark interest to the right audience? 3. Is the Introduction easy to follow for most readers of this particular journal? Does it cite the appropriate papers? Does it provide a hypothesis or aim of the study? 4. Does the Methods section provide enough details for the general reader to repeat the experiments? 5. If you skip the Methods, does the Results section give the right amount of detail to understand the basic details of the experiments? 6. Do the Results refer to the figures in a logical order? Do the numbers in the tables add up correctly? Are any figures/tables mislabeled or unclear? 7. Given the data that was obtained in this study, did the authors perform all the logical analyses? Did they include the proper controls? 8. Does the Discussion address the main findings, and does it give proper recognition to similar work in this field? 9. In general, is the paper easy to follow and does it have a logical flow? Are there any language issues? 10. Did the authors make all their data (e.g. sequence reads, code, questionnaires used) available for the readers? 11. Is this paper novel and an advancement of the field, or have other people done very similar work? 12. Finally (and hopefully you will never have to answer yes to any of these questions): Does the paper raise any ethical concerns? Any suspicion of plagiarism (text or experiments), duplicated or tampered images, lack of IRB approval, unethical animal experiments, or "dual use of research concern"?
Thank You Maytham for this interesting and important question. I think the techniques which used in the search and how it could showed the value of the aim of the study.
Dear Dr. @Maytham Qabel Hamzah
Greeting
I would like to mention here that:
To publish any research work in a reputed international scientific Journal of good impact factor, We must consider the following:
the quality of the language
The novelty, originality and good organizing of the work
The importance of the point of the research.
The scientific treatment processing should be good and accurate.
The work must be in good agreement with the scope of the journal. ... Go to the web site of that Journal to know its scope. Where, it is very important to select the appropriate journal for point of research. In addition, try to download some papers related to your work from your selected journal to see if your work is in consistence with that Journal or not.
If the authors take care of all of the above mentioned, the publishing process will be available and easy.
Good luck
Dear all the question followers:
Greeting
The important points that can be considered as an evaluate points of reviewer in any journal are almost ten major points, they are:
1- the Good language and well organization
2- The abstract should be within more or less 200 words, containing the most important obtained results without mentioning unnecessary abbreviations noting that the phrases should be strong, short and direct.
3- Introduction should include a brief literature about the usages and applications of your materials and the important of your study
4- Introduction should contain also the previous works of the authors which related to the topics of the manuscript.
5- Experimental work should clear exhibiting all the used materials and describing the used instrument, in addition the author should mention the applied practical conditions in good way.
6- Results and discussion should be clear, understandable and logic as well as dependent on recent references.
7- Tables and Figures should be well represented, organizes and formulated
8- The references should be recent and are sufficient to prove the argues of authors.
9- Conclusion should summarizes all obtained results and the most important discussion points.
10- References should be written in the standard ways.
Regards
Look at this interesting link
Article Manuscript Rejection: Causes and Remedies
1. Well laid out objectives presented
2. Clear methodology and hypotheses stated
3. Concise explanation of how data was collected and analyzed
4. Explanation of conclusions and comparison with other work including superiority of this work and shortcomings compared to other similar work 5. Clear references provided
6. The work should be well documented and clear that any other person well versed in the art should be able to follow the steps and procedures and arrive at the same results/conclusions (reproducibility)
Dear Dr. Maytham Qabel Hamzah , it is an interesting question.
Some of the criterion includes:
- High level work with wider applicability
- Nobility
- Strictly aligned to their guidelines
- Dealing with current issues
- Not focused on specific applicability
- Out put should be applicable by wider/not location specific/
- etc
Dear all,
multiple points are important for a high-quality paper:
- high level of evidence (class Ia or Ib); randomization of the study or metaanalyses or studies
- transparent method
- sophisticated study design
- valide endpoints
- high number of patients
- muliticentric study
- independent monitoring
- valide statistical anylyses performed by SPSS or SAS including multivariate analyses
- profund explanations of background and state of the art and detailed discussion
- significant results mostly have more impact
- well-known opinion leader have more impact than a unknown author
Best
Tanja
Dear all,
I appreciate all your answers
kind regards
Maytham Q. H.
Original Research Articles contain contain the following sections:
---abstract,
---introduction,
---materials and methods,
---results
---discussion
---implications
---research limitations and
---future research directions
Reviewers should consider the following questions:
• What is the overall aim of the research being presented? Is this clearly stated?
• Have the Authors clearly stated what they have identified in their research?
• Are the aims of the manuscript and the results of the data clearly and concisely stated in the abstract?
• Does the introduction provide sufficient background information to enable readers to better understand the problem being identified by the Authors?
• Have the Authors provided sufficient evidence for the claims they are making? If not, what further experiments or data needs to be included?
• Are similar claims published elsewhere? Have the Authors acknowledged these other publications? Have the Authors made it clear how the data presented in the Author’s manuscript is different or builds upon previously published data?
• Is the data presented of high quality and has it been analyzed correctly? If the analysis is incorrect, what should the Authors do to correct this?
• Do all the figures and tables help the reader better understand the manuscript? If not, which figures or tables should be removed and should anything be presented in their place?
• Is the methodology used presented in a clear and concise manner so that someone else can repeat the same experiments? If not, what further information needs to be provided?
• Do the conclusions match the data being presented?
• Have the Authors discussed the implications of their research in the discussion? Have they presented a balanced survey of the literature and information so their data is put into context?
• Is the manuscript accessible to readers who are not familiar with the topic? If not, what further information should the Authors include to improve the accessibility of their manuscript?
• Are all abbreviations used explained? Does the author use standard scientific abbreviations?
https://medicine.yale.edu/yjbm/reviewers/pointsforreviewing.aspx
I think Dr Dickson Adom's submission has put things straight. Other submissions are equally apt.
1. The topic which should address relevant issue and contribute something into existing knowledge.
2. Source of data, data analysis and data interpretation
3. Findings and recommendations
4. contribution into existing knowledge
5. logical connections of all elements.
Dear all,
I appreciate all your answers
kind regards
Maytham Qabel Hamzah
Novelty.
Getting Published - Tips and tricks.
(https://www.slideshare.net/UQSPADS/winter-scholars-2015)
Dear Dr. Jetty Ramadevi
I appreciate your answer
Regards
Maytham
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Impact Factor