It is clear that disparate sections of an article should be assessed to check whether it meets the minimum requirements of a journal or not, but my question is that how we can review a research article perfectly? and which factors should be considered?
your answers are highly appreciated.
The checklist/guidance/illustrations as per the following publications should be helpful.
- Cooper, H. M. (1982) Scientific Guidelines for Conducting Integrative Research Reviews, Review of Educational Research, 52, 2, pp. 291-302.
- 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.
I thoroughly check for accuracy of citations given, especially if citations support statements made by authors. also check for suitability of methodology, statistical analysis suitability and inferences made from the study
As a reviewer, I would ask three questions of any paper being proposed for publication. First, "Does this research answer an interesting question?" In almost all cases, "interesting" addresses the question of whether the findings will be of any real value. Second, "Are the processes involved methodologically sound?" An important sub-set of that question asks whether other scholars can replicate the findings. Finally, "What is the credibility of this scholar and his/her sources?" Until others verify or discredit the findings, we're being asked to trust this scholar, her research sources, and her findings. If I can answer those questions affirmatively, the paper has at least passed the first important hurdle.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism