filledor offering the next available opening to the editor. To what extent does the Discussion place the findings in a wider context and achieve a balance between interpretation and useful speculation versus tedious waffling? I believe it improves the transparency of the review process, and it also helps me police the quality of my own assessments by making me personally accountable. Nicola Spaldin, professor of materials theory at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich It usually takes me a few hours. After all, we are all in it together. The decision is made by the editor, and my job as a reviewer is to provide a nuanced and detailed report on the paper to support the editor. I would not want to review for a journal that does not offer an unbiased review process., eva Selenko, senior lecturer in work psychology at Loughborough University in the United Kingdom. Computer with internet access.
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. First, is it well written? Electronically Published, when content was published online or electronically. Hopefully, this will be used to make the manuscript better rather than to shame anyone.
Are the methods suitable to investigate the research question and test the hypotheses? At this first stage, I try to be as open-minded as I can. The parts of the Discussion I focus on most are context and whether the authors make claims that overreach the data. Craft a paper cat in cute cube form with this printable paper project. McGlynn My review begins with a paragraph summarizing the paper.