Scientists have to be skeptics.
Even, and especially, when it comes to our own work. Scientific results must be robust enough to endure a gauntlet of testing, redesigns, reruns, internal and external reproduction, before it can be published. We generally don't share a result (even if it is exciting!) until it has been extensively reviewed by ourselves, our colleagues and experts, because we don't want incorrect information to get out. Our work is reviewed many times before it is published. This process can take months to years. This is "Peer Review." We are proud of it.
I mention this significant point because this rigorous process is different from other information distribution. For example, this blog. While it is useful, it is not a scientific result. Did I have to submit an application to be published here on this blog? No. Has my writing been reviewed and edited by experts? No. Is it possible that I have no idea what I am talking about and that I may not be a professor or even a physicist? Yes. All I can give you is my word. I am Dr. Hay, Associate Professor of Physics, at Pacific Lutheran University. Peer review is more reliable. It allows other researchers to move forward confidently from the point where the published work left off.
How to do a Peer Review
I mention this significant point because this rigorous process is different from other information distribution. For example, this blog. While it is useful, it is not a scientific result. Did I have to submit an application to be published here on this blog? No. Has my writing been reviewed and edited by experts? No. Is it possible that I have no idea what I am talking about and that I may not be a professor or even a physicist? Yes. All I can give you is my word. I am Dr. Hay, Associate Professor of Physics, at Pacific Lutheran University. Peer review is more reliable. It allows other researchers to move forward confidently from the point where the published work left off.
How to do a Peer Review
[Cited
resource: In creating this template, I used information from the American Geophysical Union (July 2011) "A Quick Guide to Writing a
Solid Peer Review." Eos, Vol. 92, No. 28, 12.]
· Peer-Reviewers do not decide whether they like the results of an article. Rather, they decide if the experimental process is robust and if the work is relevant and communicated well.
·
Be
respectful and accurate. Don't get personal.
----Example
Template of Scientific Article Peer-Review----
Title of
reviewed manuscript
Date of review
1. Summarize
the article
About 1-2 paragraphs summarizing your understanding
of the article, perhaps answering these questions:
·
What is the main question addressed by the research?
·
Is this question pertinent to the field of study?
·
Do the results of the research contribute
substantively to the question?
2.
Publishable, not publishable or publishable with revisions? Major or minor
revisions?
State your
thoughts about the article. Evaluate it for publishability, addressing these
issues:
1.
Practical
significance
2.
Appropriateness
for this journal
3.
Adequacy
of literature review (did the author consult enough other original published
works on the topic?)
4.
Adequacy
of background information (and is all this information cited?)
5.
Adequacy
of analysis of issues
6.
Clarity
of presentation
7.
Organization
8.
Does
the article require copy-editing? (Reviewer should NOT have to correct typos
and grammar! That is up to the author. If there are errors, simply state, “The paper contains typos/grammatical
errors.”)
3. Evaluation
Briefly mention strengths of the article and provide a detailed list of shortcomings of the article, possibly answering these:
Briefly mention strengths of the article and provide a detailed list of shortcomings of the article, possibly answering these:
·
Does
the manuscript present enough background information for the reader to
understand the value and results of the work? Include your recommendations as
to how the author(s) can augment this area of the manuscript.
·
List
and describe any information, which appears to be missing. Provide suggestions
as to what information should be added.
·
Is
the main research question presented clearly?
·
Is
the experimental process (or theoretical study) designed well, robust and
reproducible? If not, what is missing?
·
Is
the content presented accurately? Good organization?
·
Do
the figures represent the data well? Are plots useful, labeled properly? Are
equations correct, explained and cited when necessary?
·
Do
the results and uncertainties answer the main research question?
·
Are
the claims backed up with compelling evidence?
·
Does
the interpretation of the results explore a range of explanations and
thoroughly interpret the results of the experiment/theory presented?
·
Is
the article written for the targeted audience (you)?
·
Offer
your constructive assessment and list suggestions for improvement and/or
enhancement. (The author may reject some of the reviewer’s suggestions if, for
example, the suggestion is beyond the scope of the paper or if the requested
information/experiment is not available/feasible.)
4. Additional
Comments to the Author(s)
Provide any additional constructive comments to the author(s) for improving and revising the article. And remember, the author can read your entire review.
Provide any additional constructive comments to the author(s) for improving and revising the article. And remember, the author can read your entire review.
