And if they have the same year, they should be in alphabetical order. The health care facilities and institutions will be contacted to obtain a verbal consent to administer the questionnaire to mothers at their places. Footnotes can be included below the table. Finally, I evaluate whether the methodology used is appropriate. You should read articles from one or more of these sources to get examples of how your paper should be organized. Then, I divide the review in two sections with bullet points, first listing the most critical aspects that the authors must address to better demonstrate the quality and novelty of the paper and then more minor points such as misspelling and figure format.
It is not merely a report on some references you found. In my field, authors are under pressure to broadly sell their work, and it's my job as a reviewer to address the validity of such claims. In my experience, they are unlikely to write a poor quality review; they might be more likely to accept the invitation, as senior scientists are typically overwhelmed with review requests; and the opportunity to review a manuscript can help support their professional development. . A letter of consent will also be sent to them along with a sample copy of the questionnaire that will be used, as well as the protocol of the researcher.
Comparative performance of stirred and Pachuca tanks in the bioleaching of a copper concentrate. Based on the results of the study, the educational attainment, work status, marital status, and seminars in the barangay the respondents are part of, about breastfeeding, are the significant factors that affect the infant feeding decision of mothers in Las Piñas City. So I can only rate what priority I believe the paper should receive for publication today. As with any paper, aim to write clearly and in a way that will be interesting for your intended audience. Footnotes can be included below the figure.
I usually write rather lengthy reviews at the first round of the revision process, and these tend to get shorter as the manuscript then improves in quality. A review is primarily for the benefit of the editor, to help them reach a decision about whether to publish or not, but I try to make my reviews useful for the authors as well. Organizing the Paper: Use topic headings. I usually differentiate between major and minor criticisms and word them as directly and concisely as possible. A key aspect of a review paper is that it provides the evidence for a particular point of view in a field.
If I've never heard of the authors, and particularly if they're from a less developed nation, then I'm also more likely to accept the invitation. I never use value judgments or value-laden adjectives. The study also showed that mothers who are married and living with their partners are more likely to breastfeed their infants than single mothers. A list of all health care facilities maternity and lying-in clinics, public and private hospitals, health centers was acquired from the Las Piñas City Hall. Also, if you don't accept a review invitation, give her a few names for suggested reviewers, especially senior Ph.
Then I run through the specific points I raised in my summary in more detail, in the order they appeared in the paper, providing page and paragraph numbers for most. First, make sure that you are an expert in the subject and aware of the recent literature on the topic you have in mind. It should include address, phone and fax. Conclusions that are overstated or out of sync with the findings will adversely impact my review and recommendations. I try to be constructive by suggesting ways to improve the problematic aspects, if that is possible, and also try to hit a calm and friendly but also neutral and objective tone. That makes things a lot harder for editors of the less prestigious journals, and that's why I am more inclined to take on reviews from them.
Once you have this done and have asked a friendly colleague to look over it and give you feedback, you will be ready to submit the review to a good journal in your field. If you make a practice of signing reviews, then over the years, many of your colleagues will have received reviews with your name on them. A short description is also accepted. I've known too many junior scientists who have been burned from signing their reviews early on in their careers. Just pretend that it's your own research and figure out what experiments you would do and how you would interpret the data. Is it aimed at new post graduate students who are just getting into the field and need somewhere to start? I try hard to avoid rude or disparaging remarks. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, vol.
And secondly, how can it be improved? Even if a manuscript is rejected for publication, most authors can benefit from suggestions. Biotechnology: developing countries and globalization. Then I read the Methods section very carefully. Second, I ponder how well the work that was conducted actually addresses the central question posed in the paper. 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? Are the methods suitable to investigate the research question and test the hypotheses? If there is a major flaw or concern, I try to be honest and back it up with evidence. New requests and reminders from editors kept piling up at a faster rate than I could complete the reviews and the problem seemed intractable.
It should certainly have a Conclusions section: what should change as a result of what you have found and discussed in your review? Work out how you will structure the paper, what key points you want to highlight, and what the story is that you will be telling through your review. Abstract The starts on the next page, page 2. I will turn down requests if the paper is too far removed from my own research areas, since I may not be able to provide an informed review. Special care on the maximum definition of the photographs is required. My reviews usually start out with a short summary and a highlight of the strengths of the manuscript before briefly listing the weaknesses that I believe should be addressed. It creates an understanding of the topic for the reader by discussing the findings presented in recent research papers.