scientific article review guidelines

If you don't spot any major flaws, take a break from the manuscript, giving you time to think. Consider the article from your own perspective. When you sit down to write the review, again make sure you familiarize yourself with any journal-specific guidelines (these will be noted in the journal's guide for authors). 3.

Step by step. guide to reviewing a manuscript. When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.

Author Hub | A Guide to Peer Reviewing Journal Articles 5/12 Before you review The following steps have usually taken place before you are asked to review an article: Author submits an article to their chosen journal using an online system, or occasionally directly to the editor. The editorial office will check that the article complies

Structure of a Scientific Review Article. Writing a high-quality scientific review article is "a balancing act between the scientific rigor needed to select and critically appraise original studies, and the art of telling a story by providing context, exploring the known and the unknown, and pointing the way forward" . The ideal scientific ...

2. Benefits of Review Articles to the Author. Analysing literature gives an overview of the "WHs": WHat has been reported in a particular field or topic, WHo the key writers are, WHat are the prevailing theories and hypotheses, WHat questions are being asked (and answered), and WHat methods and methodologies are appropriate and useful [].For new or aspiring researchers in a particular ...

22 Sep 2016. By Elisabeth Pain. Share: A good peer review requires disciplinary expertise, a keen and critical eye, and a diplomatic and constructive approach. Credit: dmark/iStockphoto. As junior scientists develop their expertise and make names for themselves, they are increasingly likely to receive invitations to review research manuscripts.

Summaries and critiques are two ways to write a review of a scientific journal article. Both types of writing ask you first to read and understand an article from the primary literature about your topic. The summary involves briefly but accurately stating the key points of the article for a reader who has not read the original article.

A well-written review article must summarize key research findings, reference must-read articles, describe current areas of agreement as well as controversies and debates, point out gaps in current knowledge, depict unanswered questions, and suggest directions for future research ( 1 ). During the last decades, there has been a great expansion ...

The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic. It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the ...

How to perform a peer review. You've received or accepted an invitation to review an article. Now the work begins. Here are some guidelines and a step by step guide to help you conduct your peer review. General and Ethical Guidelines. Step by Step Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript. Top Tips for Peer Reviewers.

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications .For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively .Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every ...

Hames, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2007. Writing a journal article review. Australian National University: Canberra, Australia, 2010. Available online. Golash-Boza, T. How to write a peer review for an academic journal: Six steps from start to finish.

A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits.

The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what a literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory. This guide describes how to plan, conduct, organize, and present a systematic review of quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative (narrative review, meta-synthesis) information.

A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the ...

Guidelines that are often referenced for SRs include the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) ( Page et al., 2021) the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews ( Cochrane, 2022) and the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis ( Aromataris and Munn, 2020 ). Each stage of the SR should be recorded so that a ...

For guidance, Nature 's standard figure sizes are 90 mm (single column) and 180 mm (double column) and the full depth of the page is 170 mm. Amino-acid sequences should be printed in Courier (or ...

So, for Articles of 2,000 words or less, we suggest including no more than 4 figures/tables. Please note that schemes should not be used and should be presented as figures instead. Your submission ...

Read at least five highquality chapters on a similar topic to make yours better. STEP 2. Gather and read about 50 -100 original articles on a topic within your scientific field. STEP 3. Write down ...

The general topic, issue, or area of concern is given to illustrate the context. 2) "Problem". Trends, new perspectives, gaps, conflicts, or a single problem is indicated. 3) Motivation/justification. The author's reason for reviewing the literature, the approach and the organisation of the text are described.

Information for authors. Science is a weekly, peer-reviewed journal that publishes significant original scientific research, plus reviews as well as commentary on current research, science policy, and issues of interest to the broad scientific community. We seek to publish papers that are influential in their fields or across fields and that ...

Specific Review Guidelines. R Awards (Research Project Grants: R01, R03, R21, SBIR/STTR, etc.) K Awards (Career Development) P Awards. F Awards (Fellowships) T Awards (Training) C06, UC6 & G20 Awards. Administrative Centers.

The translation of evidence from a scientific journal to athlete practice is somewhat limited [] and may be an example of why adoption of HA is not universal.Indeed, passive dissemination strategies (i.e., provision of information in booklets) is often ineffective (especially if not in the readers native language and/or for those with visual and intellectual impairments), active participation ...

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writing has raised concerns regarding accuracy, ethics, and scientific rigour. Some AI content detectors may not accurately identify AI-generated texts, especially those that have undergone paraphrasing. Therefore, there is a pressing need for efficacious approaches or guidelines to govern AI usage in specific disciplines.

Scientists do know that asthma and cardiovascular disease share a common bond: inflammation. The lungs add oxygen to blood, which the heart then pumps to the rest of the body. It's possible, Jarjour said, that inflammation in the lungs "gets carried by the blood and spills over to the rest of the body and (impacts) brain health and ...

Call For Papers. Abstract submission deadline: May 15, 2024. Full paper submission deadline, including technical appendices and supplemental material (all authors must have an OpenReview profile when submitting): May 22, 2024 01:00 PM PDT or. Author notification: Sep 25, 2024. Camera-ready, poster, and video submission: Oct 30, 2024 AOE.

They can be cited using the author(s), article title, journal title, year of online publication, and DOI. They will be replaced by the final typeset articles, which may therefore contain changes. The DOI will remain the same throughout.

The PRISMA statement elaborated to write a well-designed review articles contains a 27-item checklist (Table 1). It will be reasonable to fulfill the requirements of these items during preparation of a review article or a meta-analysis. Thus preparation of a comprehensible article with a high-quality scientific content can be feasible.

A multidisciplinary care team (MDT) must balance the risks and benefits of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) vs. entrapping leads in patients with preexisting leads from cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) being considered for orthotopic transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR), which accounts for roughly 35% of the TTVR population, according to a JACC State-of-the-Art Review ...

References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate. Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page.