Scientific paper review form: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Bosmana fem (talk | contribs) (Created page with " Category:Writing for Publications") |
Bosmana fem (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==General information:== | |||
;Title of the paper: | |||
;Authors: | |||
;References: | |||
;Reviewer: | |||
;Date: | |||
;General narrative comments: | |||
{| class="wikitable" style="font-weight:bold; vertical-align:bottom;" | |||
|- style="font-style:italic;" | |||
! rowspan="3" | Area | |||
! rowspan="3" | Checklist items | |||
! rowspan="3" | Grading from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) | |||
! Explanations | |||
|- style="font-style:italic;" | |||
| (Provide an explanation to justify your grading of each of the items) | |||
|- style="font-style:italic;" | |||
| style="font-style:normal; font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| Overall assessment of the paper | |||
| The background introduces a specific question and spells out objectives based on a description of general and specific issues. | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The methods section provides sufficient information on design, sampling, definitions, data collection, laboratory methods and data analysis. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The results section reports sound scientific data that meet the objectives. There are enough details and adequate statistical information. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The discussion section interprets the results to build a case based on the data presented and the literature. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The limitations are described and analysed so that their impact on the capacity to conclude is well understood. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The paper suggests the next steps in terms of intervention and gathering additional evidence based on the evidence presented. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| Methods | |||
| The design is adequate to meet the objectives. | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The population is well defined and relevant to the objectives. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| Definitions are specified, sound and based upon standardized criteria when available. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| Sampling methods are statistically sound and adapted. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The sample size was estimated beforehand appropriately and is adequate. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The design is exempt from bias. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The data that were collected are well-described and relevant. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The data was collected with methods ensuring sufficient quality. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The analysis is thought out beforehand and appropriate. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The indicators generated are appropriate and well-calculated. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The statistical tests are appropriate and well-computed. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| Appropriate attention has been given to human subject protection. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| Writing | |||
| The content is well distributed in the relevant chapters and sections. | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The language is simple and clear. The word count is < 3000. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The writing is sequential, going from one point to the next. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The active voice is used throughout. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The vocabulary is precise, consistent and standardized. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| Tables and figures | |||
| There are no more than five relevant and useful tables and or figures. | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The choice of graph or table to display information is judicious. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The tables are clear, and exact, and the totals add up. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|- | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| The graphs are effective, appropriate and understandable, and have a low ink-to-data ratio. | |||
| | |||
| style="font-weight:normal;" | | |||
|} | |||
[[Category:Writing for Publications]] | [[Category:Writing for Publications]] | ||
Revision as of 13:41, 11 April 2023
General information:
- Title of the paper
- Authors
- References
- Reviewer
- Date
- General narrative comments
| Area | Checklist items | Grading from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) | Explanations |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Provide an explanation to justify your grading of each of the items) | |||
| Overall assessment of the paper | The background introduces a specific question and spells out objectives based on a description of general and specific issues. | ||
| The methods section provides sufficient information on design, sampling, definitions, data collection, laboratory methods and data analysis. | |||
| The results section reports sound scientific data that meet the objectives. There are enough details and adequate statistical information. | |||
| The discussion section interprets the results to build a case based on the data presented and the literature. | |||
| The limitations are described and analysed so that their impact on the capacity to conclude is well understood. | |||
| The paper suggests the next steps in terms of intervention and gathering additional evidence based on the evidence presented. | |||
| Methods | The design is adequate to meet the objectives. | ||
| The population is well defined and relevant to the objectives. | |||
| Definitions are specified, sound and based upon standardized criteria when available. | |||
| Sampling methods are statistically sound and adapted. | |||
| The sample size was estimated beforehand appropriately and is adequate. | |||
| The design is exempt from bias. | |||
| The data that were collected are well-described and relevant. | |||
| The data was collected with methods ensuring sufficient quality. | |||
| The analysis is thought out beforehand and appropriate. | |||
| The indicators generated are appropriate and well-calculated. | |||
| The statistical tests are appropriate and well-computed. | |||
| Appropriate attention has been given to human subject protection. | |||
| Writing | The content is well distributed in the relevant chapters and sections. | ||
| The language is simple and clear. The word count is < 3000. | |||
| The writing is sequential, going from one point to the next. | |||
| The active voice is used throughout. | |||
| The vocabulary is precise, consistent and standardized. | |||
| Tables and figures | There are no more than five relevant and useful tables and or figures. | ||
| The choice of graph or table to display information is judicious. | |||
| The tables are clear, and exact, and the totals add up. | |||
| The graphs are effective, appropriate and understandable, and have a low ink-to-data ratio. |