Reviewing the Research of Others

1. Reviewing the Research of Others RIMC Research Capacity Enhancement Workshops Series : “Achieving Research Impact”

2. Reviewing the research of others • The Peer-Reviewing Process  (refereeing) • Normally 1-3 reviewers • “Double-blind,” the reviewers and the authors do not know each other • The editor mediates between them • A good review; • Summarises the manuscript to show that the reviewer understood it • Identifies its strengths and weaknesses • Avoid self promotion • Advises on how to improve it • How to strengthen weaknesses • Which additional references to read • Publication: • Accept unconditionally • Conditionally accept subject to modification • Reject but encourage revision and resubmission • Reject outright

3. What editors want to see (i) Proper Structure What to look for Capable of standing in for the paper Brief, contextual, problem oriented Comprehensive but succinct Simple, clear, justifiable from the literature Relevant to the theory, practical Straightforward and honest description Concise, complete Make full and logical use of the results Interpretative and justifiable Relate discussion to the problem/objective Complete • Abstract • Introduction • Literature Review • Theoretical Framework • Research Design • Methodology • Results • Analysis • Discussion • Conclusions • References

4. Persuasion • many journals reject up to 90% of submissions • Logical flow of ideas and arguments • Something new, interesting, counter-intuitive • A contribution.. • In the context of prior work • References; • Relevant • Adequate, not excessive • To the journal you’re submitting to • Recently published (4 years) What editors want to see (ii)

5. Plagiarism • Taking someone else’s work as your own • Not providing appropriate citation information to indicate authorship correctly. • Plagiarism is a serious offence • An author who plagiarises is likely to find that; • his/her article is automatically rejected • irrespective of the quality of the work done • he/she is blacklisted from that journal (and other journals) in the future • Plagiarism is very easy to detect From Davison, R.M. (2011)Tutorial on Publishing ICT4D Research, Presented at the IFIP WG9.4 Conference, Kathmandu, Nepal, 22-25 May.

6. Inappropriate objectives • Unclear, drifting; too many; too ambitious • Incomplete/overdone literature review • Conclusions do not arise from analysis • No data, no research • Too much speculation • Confusing correlation with causation • Unsuitable length; should be 5-8k words • No story • Uninteresting , boring • Trivial, irrelevant, no problem, done before • Poorly constructed, weakly argued • Ethical concerns Rejecting manuscripts

7. Typical review form Use this as checklist for manuscripts

8. Understand your role  • To evaluate and advise, not critique • Do iton time • Read manuscripts carefully • Find something positive to say • Don’t be mean • Be brief • Don’t nitpick • Develop your reviewing style; • Summary, strengths, weaknesses, advise. • Make a recommendation  • Review unto others as you would have them review unto you. 10 tips for reviewing When a young researcher becomes known as an excellent reviewer, he or she may be selected as consulting editor, then associate editor, and then perhaps the primary editor of a journal. Referees, and often editors, are not usually paid.

9. The open peer review • Post-publication reviews • Timescales • Bias, unaccountable, incomplete • Not designed to detect fraud • Not full access to the data • Susceptible to control by established elites Issues with peer reviewing