Impressive How To Write An Effective Referee Report And Improve The Scientific Review Process
Be specific about what you think the study adds or changes in terms of understanding the pathway or disease under investigation andor where this leaves us in terms of a conceptual advance.
How to write an effective referee report and improve the scientific review process. Harvey and David Hirshleifer in the Journal of Economic Perspectives commented 2 years ago by user_7j3b5m 630 points. They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show. How to Write an Effective Referee Report and Improve the Scientific Review Process.
The Role of the Referee in thePeer Review Process. As a reviewer your job is to decide whether the paper is publishable in its current form and what would make it publishable if it is not. Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author.
The review process for academic journals in economics has grown vastly more extensive over time. Even if the extra resulting revisions do on average lead to improved papers--a claim that is debatable--the cost is enormous. What to Do and How to Do it.
A form for you to fill in and a comment box for more detailed remarks. QA with Larry Katz editor of QJE by Berk Özler and David McKenzie How to Write an Effective Referee Report and Improve the Scientific Review Process by Jonathan Berk Campell Harvey and David Hirshleifer Preparing a Referee ReportGuidelines and PerspectivesE by Jonathan Berk Campell Harvey and David. Start your report by briefly summarising the purpose and results of the.
How to Write an Effective Referee Report and Improve the Scientific Review Process 235 problems that must be addressed before publication require rigorous justification. However guidance on how to write a response to. Once described they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding.
You will need to complete all the forms and answer all the questions asked by the journal. Most scientists learn how to review papers by being thrown into the deep end of the pool. 31 issue 1 231-44.