Paper lantern candel balloon centerpiece. Duration of under review paper
what I think is a serious flaw in the manuscript. I'm critiquing the work, not the authors. Walsh The main aspects I consider are the novelty of the articleand its impact on the field. Does it contribute to our knowledge, or is it old wine in new bottles? Therefore, the characteristics of the seismic behavior of flat slab buildings suggest that guiding the concept and design of these structures in seismic regions are needed. I then delve into the Methods and Results sections. Using a copy of the manuscript that I first marked up with any questions that I had, I write a brief summary of what the paper is about and what I feel about its solidity. Are the methods robust and well controlled? I almost never print out papers for review; I prefer to work with the electronic version. . I also consider whether the article contains a good Introduction and description of the state of the art, as that indirectly shows whether the authors have a good knowledge of the field. I usually consider first the relevance to my own expertise. So accepting an invitation for me is the default, unless a paper is really far from my expertise or my workload doesnt allow. If I find the paper especially interesting (and even if I am going to recommend rejection I tend to give a more detailed review because I want to encourage the authors to develop duration of under review paper the paper (or, maybe, to do a new paper along the lines. I usually differentiate between major and minor criticisms and word them as directly and concisely as possible. I would not want to review for a journal that does not offer an unbiased review process., eva Selenko, senior lecturer in work psychology duration of under review paper at Loughborough University in the United Kingdom. Overall, I try to make comments that would make the paper stronger. . I even selectively check individual numbers to see whether they are statistically plausible. Hopefully, this will be used to make the manuscript better rather than to shame anyone. I do not focus so much on the statisticsa quality journal should have professional statistics review for any accepted manuscriptbut I consider all the other logistics of study design where its easy to hide a fatal flaw. . Overall, I want to achieve an evaluation of the study that is fair, objective, and complete enough to convince both the editor and the authors that I know something about what Im talking about. Selenko Publication is not a binary recommendation. It is also very important that the authors guide you through the whole article and explain every table, every figure, and every scheme. (I usually pay close attention to the useand misuseof frequentist statistics.) Is the presentation of results clear and accessible? For me, the first question is this: Is the research sound? I wrote a paper a few months ago, which I submitted to a journal and is currently under review. Flat slab building structures are significantly flexible than traditional concrete wall structures or frame structures (beam-column-slab thus becoming more vulnerable to seismic loading condition. I try to stick to the facts, so my writing tone tends toward neutral. 16.6k researchers subscribed to this stage last month. Present work provides more information about parameters like story shear, base shear, storey drift and maximum bending moment at column for this author takes 6 stories having 77mx55m dimension using etabs for ESA and RSA.
Second, i also try to cite digital carbonless copy paper a specific factual reason or some evidence for any major criticisms or suggestions that I make. Depending on how much time I have. While obviously original, you can often recognize whether the authors considered the full context of their topic.
Waiting another day always seems to improve the review. And we never know what findings will amount to in a few years. I am looking to see if the research question is well motivated. And now I am in the happy situation of only experiencing latereview guilt on Friday afternoons. Many breakthrough studies were not recognized as such for many years. I try to read up on those topics or consult other colleagues. I will write paper ladder display a pretty long and specific review pointing out what the authors need. Could this methodology have answered their question. The authors might not agree with that print silver on black paper characterization.
If there are serious mistakes or missing parts, then I do not recommend publication.Conclusions that are overstated or out of sync with the findings will adversely impact my review and recommendations., dana Boatman-Reich, professor of neurology and otolaryngology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.