Reviewers
GUIDE OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVIEWERS
This document provides a series of ideas that reviewers can use as a guide when carrying out their task of reviewing the assigned scientific work.
A) Checkpoints
1. Novelty and opportunity: of the object of study or the methodology or both.
2. Theoretical-conceptual framework: presentation of background or state of the art in a rich and meaningful way.
3. Materials and methods: rationality, adequacy, traceability.
4. Results: novelty, significance, academic impact, social impact or both, synthesis of the results.
5. Information visualization : appropriate use of tables, diagrams, graphs, etc., to represent relevant job information.
6. Discussion and conclusions: significance, comparison with other works, answer to questions, solution to objectives, new research.
7. Title and summary: adequacy, correctly expresses the content of the work.
8. Structure: use of IMRyD (Introduction, Method, Results and Discussion) or an equivalent structure appropriate to the object of analysis of the work.
9. References: complete and appropriate to APA regulations 7th ed.
10. Writing: good writing, easy understanding, academic record, logical organization, connectivity, etc.
Recommendation: do not reject a work that is favorable in all of the above points but that, in the reviewer's opinion, does not have adequate writing. In this case, it is recommended to indicate this aspect in the review report and request a new submission with a modification in the wording to make it more appropriate. In this way, we can avoid losing a novel and interesting work, whose research has been adequately prepared, but which fails in the writing.
B) Additional relevant issues
- a) What is important about an investigation?
- Make it meaningful. That is, it makes valuable contributions to the field (theory) or to society (solutions) or, better, to both.
- That it is appropriate to the object of study and the objectives.
- That it is valid and that it is presented in a transparent, traceable and replicable way.
- The format chosen to synthesize the results is the essential complement.
- b) What is important about the article?
- Let it be well written. Non-specialists in the field should also understand it. An article so specialized that only the authors understand it is of no use.
- Structure: it is best to apply IMRyD or equivalent due to the transparency it imposes.
- Theoretical framework, discussion and conclusions.
C) Recommendations for preparing the peer review report
a) Summary
- Characteristics of the research and significance or most significant contributions
b) Issues
- Majors (in general, research)
- Minors (in general, from the manuscript)
c) recommendations
- Reasoned proposals for improvement
Observation format
- Unitary paragraphs: each paragraph should focus on one idea.
- Observations and recommendations: preferably in list format.
- Extension: between 1 and 3 pages (approximately)
- To expressly avoid:
- Long paragraphs, with subordinate clauses, with more than one idea and with different intertwined recommendations .
- Try to avoid personal biases as much as possible.
- Ideas and recommendations expressed so that the authors can operate with them.
In general, when indicating any recommendation (SEES scheme – Publons Academy):
- Make a Statement
- Explain your reasons ( E xplain ).
- Provide an example ( Example ) .
- Suggest a solution ( S olution ).
