Much self-policing occurs, such that the journal is likely (but of course not guaranteed) to be an appropriate match.
Thus every review is primarily a conversation between you, the editor, and the manuscript's authors, with some additional dynamics provided by the (typically two to three) other referees.
Third, you want to engage in as productive a dialog with the authors as possible, and to a small degree the other reviewers as well.Performing a review doesn't just mean stating your opinion it necessitates convincing someone else to do what you want, which is a bit different. Second, you want to convince the editor that he or she should agree with you.We'll unpack the details of this task in a bit. First, you do want to establish whether or not the paper's any good.I'd say that refereeing a manuscript actually comprises three tasks, only one of which is tied to the actual document: This is a superset of the nominal task of determining whether the text itself is sound, or even whether the project is a good fit for the proposed journal. First, consider that your job in reviewing a manuscript is to improve the scientific literature and community. There's sometimes a bit more to the process. Well, at least that's the way it goes if you happen to be the third reviewer. On the surface, this is a relatively straightforward process: a journal emails you, you reluctantly hit "Agree", and two weeks plus one day later when you receive an automated email reminding you that you're late, you hastily dash off a few sentences deriding the document as the worst piece of drivel to ever disgrace your inbox.
#SLEIPNIR REVIEW HOW TO#
Another piece of academic logistics that's been of interest in the lab lately has been how to effectively referee a manuscript.
0 kommentar(er)
