1 / 14

The Art and Responsibility of Reviewing Scientific Papers

Reviewing scientific papers is a pivotal yet challenging role that demands critical thinking and attention to detail. Each submission requires comprehensive evaluations, with only a portion ultimately accepted for publication. Through personal insights, the complexity of this process is revealed, emphasizing its distinction from co-authoring roles. New reviewers are encouraged to learn through experience rather than formal courses. This guide underscores the importance of constructive feedback, the necessity of understanding the papers reviewed, and the profound responsibility of shaping scientific discourse.

stacey-stuart
Télécharger la présentation

The Art and Responsibility of Reviewing Scientific Papers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reviewing scientific papers Jan Tind Sørensen Dept. of Animal Health, Welfare and Nutrition

  2. First encounter- you will never forget! Major revision !!

  3. Confession :I referee papers for scientific journals Animal Journal of Dairy Science Veterinary Research Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Animal Research Actabiotheoretica Livestock Science Agricultural Systems Computers and Electronics in Agriculture Animal Welfare

  4. I do it – you do it! Each paper submitted results in two referee reports Only half of the papers submitted will be printed At least four referee reports for each paper printed

  5. Reviewing scientific papers Is it a big responsibility ? Yes! Is it rewording? No! Why do it? Many don’t

  6. How do you learn to be a good reviewer of scientific papers? You take a course? No You learn from a senior referee? Rarely It is learning by doing? Yes and alone

  7. Some subjective speculations I Different from being a co-author • Do not rewrite the paper • If you do not understand the paper reject it • Papers without a purpose is difficult • Language: It is not your paper

  8. Some subjective speculations II You are a referee: Please explain your verdict

  9. Some subjective speculations III Different from being a supervisor – but some advise is OK • Introduction: Missing papers • Material & Methods: • Missing information can be critical • Revised analysis-very unpopular • Results: Less results please • Discussion: Only you own results

  10. How mush time should you use on this blood, sweat and tears of the authors? A week? 2 days? ½ a day? Two hours? 15 minuttes?

  11. How mush time should you use on this blood , swet and tears of the authors? A week? 2 days? ½ a day? May be Two hours? 15 minuttes?

  12. How mush time should you use on this blood , swet and tears of the authors? A week? 2 days? ½ a day? Two hours? Sounds reasonable 15 minuttes?

  13. How mush time should you use on this blood , swet and tears of the authors? A week? 2 days? ½ a day? Two hours? 15 min? Could be enough for a rejection

  14. Reviewing scientific papers:Conclusion • Be positive: Like being a blood donor • We need courses on being a reviewer • The review job is a very important duty in science and should be given credit as such

More Related