Peer Review Checklist Research Paper

Reviewers (also called referees) are blinded, meaning that authors never know the identity of the reviewers.I’ll write more about the overall editorial process at JM in my next editorial, but here I’d like to focus specifically on the reviewing of a manuscript.But it is my philosophy that everything about the science publishing enterprise should be focused on the reader, and so it is with the peer-review process.

Reviewers (also called referees) are blinded, meaning that authors never know the identity of the reviewers.I’ll write more about the overall editorial process at JM in my next editorial, but here I’d like to focus specifically on the reviewing of a manuscript.But it is my philosophy that everything about the science publishing enterprise should be focused on the reader, and so it is with the peer-review process.

But for the peer-review process to fulfill its goals, the reviews must be of good quality. Alas, I suspect that none of us has ever been trained in proper science-paper reviewing—we generally figure it out through experience.

Anyone who has published a fair number of papers knows that some reviews are of much higher quality than others (independent of the ultimate fate of any given manuscript).

As one might expect, the checklist also happens to be a great list of things an author should consider before submitting a manuscript.

It is always good advice for an author to think like a reader, and the first readers will be the editors and reviewers.

you’ve figured out your ideas, your proofs, and how they all fit together.

If that stuff is the skeleton and muscle of your paper, surface revisions are about the skin: the part everybody sees, which makes it look pretty.Use these checklists as needed to work on your paper, or a classmate’s paper if you’re working together.The areas are: One expectation behind this exercise is that you have more material in your research notes than you can fit into your paper.It can be hard to spot errors in an essay you’ve read a dozen times already, but there are some tricks that help you see them with fresh eyes.The best way to catch them is to break up the flow of ideas.Neither SPIE nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the SPIE website. We require a minimum of two independent reviews before we will accept a manuscript, though it remains the editor’s decision on whether a manuscript is ultimately accepted or rejected.There are many kinds of peer review, so to be specific JM practices an editor-driven external peer review of author-submitted manuscripts.These topics constitute a reasonable list of things a reviewer should be looking for in any paper that might hope to be published.Appended to this editorial is a summary of the advice I gave in those editorials, organized in the form of a checklist.The peer-review process serves two immediate goals: to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish and which to reject (filtering), and to give authors advice on how to improve their papers (criticism).Additionally, the “stamp of approval” of being published in a peer-reviewed journal can aid authors in their careers, as well as having many other benefits.