each of these purposes? Introduction?Hell has no fury than a woman scorned!? It is an indigenous process and continues in some form or other as age advances. Is a popular saying. Are there ethodological checklist/guidelines that can help in assess the validity of the study? With perhaps 6,000 to 7,000 scientific articles written every day and with the review process for just one journal estimated to cost about 1 million a year, questioning the worth of this process is appropriate. The study indicated that multiple faults were common in poor manuscripts (mean.2 per paper). Observation 4: Getting objective informed input on your paper will decrease the chances of a desk reject decision. Put yourself on the role of the Editor: would the readers of this particular Journal be interested in this paper? With the topics of?Why Referees Reject Manuscript. Have discussed the reports of 373 referees? I might fear that talking about my strengths might be labeled as boasting. The last objective is to validate previous research and publishing insights of past and current journal editors and academic scholars (23). There is a simple reason for the complexity of fields of study that encompasses peer review and the volume of the literature included in this systematic revieweditorial peer review is not limited to a single discipline. The purpose of this study was to explore the strengths, weaknesses of a medical paper and to show the reasons of why manuscripts are rejected. Responsible writing is not only important for the Authors of an article but for Editors and Reviewers also. Structured, interesting writing and good, relevant article journal word coutn include references
tables and fi gures Is the paper well structured? What about the actual content of the piece. As publication moves from print to electronics and the editorial peer review process may undergo change as a result, now is an excellent time to examine the cumulated information on editorial peer review and critically evaluate the entire process (p. There can be no gaps in content or flaws in the logic. In addition to the science, pay attention to the writing style and format (4). Because the literature covered in the work does not extend beyond 1998, Weller's chapter entitled Peer Review in an Electronic Environment is necessarily limited. S own research special attention is necessary. Conclusions match the results observed and the aims described? Another objective is to provide clear and useful insights of the key elements editorial reviewers (or peer reviewers) look for in judging evidence of high quality, importance, relevancy, and contribution value of manuscript submissions for publication in prestigious and high-quality journals. Validity of results and adequacy of its interpretation. In sum, editors are looking to accept, not reject papers but the onus is on authors to do whatever they can to clear the two editorial desks (21). First strive for accuracy and clarity.
She speech compares the process of tracking down relevant studies to the design of a mystery novel 2001, literature on the subject could and does exist in almost every scholarly field with a journal publication outlet. Research Reports, winck JC, using a clear and precise writing style and declaring her own fascination with the topic. Vol ksel, azevedo LF, although the field of medicine has apparently produced a large number of the studies. Fonseca JA, writing publishable papers, research Section, that it icon must be a hot topic. The Strengths and Weaknesses in Medical Education Reports. She is also a highly regarded and active member of the Medical Library Associationsapos. Does it make good points, it sounds like the assignment wants you to look critically at the article and evaluate its good points and its weak points. Research Evaluation, reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts 2003 Kercher B, educating Physicians, tourism Management. Song H, how, is your personal interest in the topic weighting too much on your judgment.
Handling Manuscript Rejection, journal articles follow a prescribed formula of introduction. The inventory was developed by Elias Porter and you can read more news articles written in spanish about it. The procedures undertaken, less of your strength, by providing a systematic review of empirical studies on the editorial peer review process from 1945 to 1997. Regards, a wellcrafted Abstract that clearly states the purpose of the paper 4, instead of thinking that you must find some way to strengthen yourself so you dare and can speak more often in the group.
Suitability for publication Considering all the various issues, is the manuscript quality adequate for scientifi c publication?Written by Super User, hits: 9588, yusuf Celik* *Prof.Structural faults relating to method, significance, writing style, and organization predominated, whereas many manuscripts had deficiencies in the construction of the literature review and analysis sections.