sitting, anything from 1 to 5 hours depending on the length of the paper. For me, the first question is this: Is the research sound? If there are serious mistakes or missing parts, then I do not recommend publication. Even if a manuscript is rejected for publication, most authors can benefit from suggestions. The review process is brutal enough scientifically without reviewers making it worse. I'm more prone to agree to do a review if it involves a system or method in which I have a particular expertise. My tone is very formal, scientific, and in third person. Walsh My recommendations are inversely proportional to the length of my reviews. If the paper has horrendous difficulties or a confused concept, I will specify that but will not do a lot of work to try to suggest fixes for every flaw. These might include, for example, a few lines from a letter he found in the Martin Luther King. There are a few aspects that I make sure to address, though I cover a lot more ground as well.
Current research paper, Outlining a scientific research paper, Introduction paragraph for a term paper,
Finally comes a list of really minor stuff, which I try to keep to a minimum. Year : The year the source was published. The first step is to create a table for the sources you consult. The row contained all of the relevant bibliographic information and was labeled with a unique source identifier number. First, is it well written? Most students dont have Microsoft Access. This is time consuming! In one table, he had a row for every source he read. Does it clarify chronology? Giri What further advice do you have for researchers who are new to the peer-review process? Walsh I try to act as a neutral, curious reader who wants to understand every detail.