GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
Comments
for the Author
Identify the major contributions of the paper.
What are its major strengths and weaknesses, and its suitability
for publication? Please include both general and specific comments bearing on
these questions, and emphasize your most significant points.
General Comments should address the following:
Importance and interest to this journal’s readers
Scientific soundness
Originality
Degree to which conclusions are supported
Organization and clarity
Cohesiveness or argument
Length relative to information content
Whether material should be moved to an appendix
Conciseness and writing style
Appropriateness for Scientia discipulorum
Specific Comments:
Support
your general comments, positive or negative, with specific evidence.
Remember that a review lacking substance will generally have less
impact than a review that is well-reasoned and rich in content.
You may write directly on the manuscript but YOU MUST summarize
your remarks in “Comments for the Author(s)”.
Comment on any of the following matters that significantly affected
your judgment of the paper:
1.
Presentation – Does the paper tell a cohesive story? Is a tightly reasoned argument evident throughout the paper?
Where does the paper wander from this argument?
Do the title, abstract, key words, introduction, and conclusions
accurately and consistently reflect the major point(s) of the paper?
Is the writing concise, easy to follow, interesting?
2.
Length
– What portions of the paper should be expanded, condensed, combined,
and/or deleted? (Please
don’t advise an overall shortening by X%.
Be specific!)
3.
Methods – Are they appropriate, current, and described clearly enough that
the work could be repeated by someone else?
4.
Data presentation – When results and especially trends in results are stated in the
text of the paper, can this be easily verified by examining tables and
figures? Are any of the
results counterintuitive? Are
all tables and figures necessary, clearly labeled, well planned, and
readily interpretable? Are the conclusions justified by the presented
results?
5.
Statistical design and analyses – Are they appropriate and correct?
Can the reader readily discern which measurements or observations
are independent of which other measurements or observations?
Are significance statements justified?
6.
Errors
– Point out any errors in technique, fact, calculation, interpretation,
or style. (e.g., see the
“CBE Style Manual, Fifth Edition”, and the ASTM Standard E380-93,
“Standard Practice for Use of the International System of Units” –
for an abbreviated version see the ASTM website.)
7.
Citations – Are all (and only) pertinent references cited?
Are they provided for all assertions of fact not supported by the
data in this paper?
8.
Overlap – Does this paper report data or conclusions already published or in
press? If so, please provide
details.
Contact Information
Editor, Dr. T.B. Mihuc
Plattsburgh State University
101 Broad Street,
Plattsburgh NY 12901
Phone: (518) 564-3038
|