How to review a paper

1.Title and author <title and author>The title can be used to determine the topic to be discussed in an article, and the title and author are also the unique identifiers of an article.

 

2.Overview <summary>This document provides a fair and concise overview of the content ~ 3 sentences. This part is not commented, mainly used to show the reviewer's understanding of the content of the article.

 

3.Advantages <Good Things>This part is not necessary, but if it is a critical review, it is recommended to add. If you want the author to make a lot of changes to the article, this part can be a good psychological reminder.

 

4.Main review comments <major comments>Discuss the assumptions, methods, analysis, results, conclusions, and references in the article, and provide constructive suggestions. If possible, give suggestions for improvement.

 

5.Secondary review comments <minor comments>Including comments on the format, chart, and syntax of the article. If these aspects of the article are so bad that they affect the overall effect of the article, you can put this part of the opinion into the main review. You can list these comments in the form of a list.

 

6.Comments <recommendations>Some editors will pay more attention to the criticism of the article and ignore its advantages. Therefore, it is necessary to give your suggestion on the article, for example, directly publishing <publish as is>, after modification, publish <publish after corrections have been made> and reject <reject>. Sometimes the recommendation comments are more suitable for cover letter.

 

References:

1. Alan Meier,How to review a technical paper,Berkeley Lab, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA

2. Barak pearlmutter,How to review a scientific paper, Hamilton Institute, National University of Ireland, Maynooth

 

When did you learn to view your manuscript from the perspective of the most rigorous reviewer? Your essay writing level has improved.In addition, you need to remember the following sentence,You can make it easier for reviewers.For example, if your language is incorrect, can you give the reviewers a good impression? Who can carefully understand the meaning of this sentence, his medium investment rate will be greatly improved. Pai_^

 

**************************************** *******

Overall CommentsThe content, highlights, and shortcomings of this paper. It is recommended to accept, minor repair, overhaul and supplement data, and directly return the draft.
Specific comments

I) novelty ??(This also includes plagiarism, repeated research, or apparently fraudulent investigations, with the largest number of repeated studies) This is the most time-consuming and I will investigate and look at similar work for each review paper. This is also an opportunity for you to learn. Pai_^

Ii) Specific technical details ,??Specific technical problems, such as some people claim to have done protein expression and purification, and this is part of the main content of the article, but does not list the intermediate results of the SDS--PAGE, only the Final purification results, this will allow him to add images. For example, if the details are calculated incorrectly, the error line does not indicate the unit problem determination method.

Iii) experimental design ,??Defects in the design of the experiment, comparison of the supplement, experiment, etc.

Iv) logical relations between sentences ??This is mainly about the transition and connection suggestions of Context data and conclusions.

V) figures and tables (technical problems )??How to process charts and text descriptions

Vi) and finally language.