1 / 18

A gentle introduction to reviewing research papers

A gentle introduction to reviewing research papers. Alistair Edwards. Writing for the audience. Who is the intended readership? conference journal marker peers To what extent are you typical of the intended readers?. Is there a hypothesis?. If so

nubia
Download Presentation

A gentle introduction to reviewing research papers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A gentle introduction to reviewing research papers Alistair Edwards

  2. Writing for the audience • Who is the intended readership? • conference • journal • marker • peers • To what extent are you typical of the intended readers?

  3. Is there a hypothesis? • If so • Have authors supported or rejected it in their current study? • To support the null hypothesis is equally valid scientifically • e.g. Animation in web advertising does not improve click-through rates • If not • Have they nevertheless addressed a valid question?

  4. Is there a story? • If not • a bad sign • …but is the paper nevertheless readable?

  5. Is there a sufficient literature review? • Does it provide sufficient context for the (average) reader?

  6. Is the paper well structured? • Introduction • Contribution • Generally • Method • Results • Discussion • Conclusion

  7. Is the quality of the writing good? • Can you read it first time? • Are grammatical errors • non-existent? • few? • annoying? • detracting from your understanding? • How readable is it?

  8. Is the voice appropriate? • Not too formal – or informal? • Is offensive language avoided? • Without being too politically correct?

  9. Are figures and tables well used? • …and well explained?

  10. Are statements backed by evidence? • Are there any opinions?

  11. Is the methodology sound? • Validity: • construct • internal • external • ecological

  12. How good is the abstract? • Does it • State the contribution made? • State the motivation as to why it is interesting? • State the methodology followed? • State the results? • State the conclusions? • 1-2 sentences for each of these?

  13. Is there a good introduction? • Does it • Introduce the topic? • ‘This paper is about…’ very early on • Introduce the background? • Introduce the paper?

  14. Conclusions? Does the paper state – or re-iterate – succinctly: • The contribution made? • The motivation as to why it is interesting to the audience and how it applies to them? • The methodology already described? • The key results? • What the findings mean to the field and how it is original and important?

  15. What can you say that is positive about the paper? • It is easy to be negative • The review process tends to encourage this • Reasons not to accept papers • But positive feedback may be most valuable to the authors

  16. Comments for the committee/editor alone (hidden from the authors) • What – if anything – would you put in this section?

  17. Why? • Having read the paper, can you answer the questions: • Why did the authors write it? • Would anyone want to read it?

  18. Your reviews • http://www-module.cs.york.ac.uk/advt/Tutorials/Review.php

More Related