WritingintheSciencesModule8.1:HowtodoaPeerReviewPeerReview„Ifyouarethereviewer,afewtips…PeerReview:Tone„Assumethereissomepoorgraduatestudentontheotherendwhodidallthework,andwhoseconfidenceandcareerdependonyourcritique.„Tonematters!„E.g.“Theauthorsshoulddeletetable5;notonlyisitcompletelyirrelevant,butitalsorevealstheirutterlackofstatisticalunderstanding.”„vs.“Table5containsunnecessaryinformation(forexample…),andaPearson’scorrelationcoefficientmaynotbeappropriatehere.Theauthorsshouldconsiderrevisingoromittingthetable.”PeerReview:Tone„Avoidcriticizingtheauthors!Criticizethework.„Avoidgeneralizations;pointoutspecificerrors.„Usepositiveinsteadofnegativelanguagewherepossible:“Thepaperispoorlywritten.”vs.“Thewritingandpresentationcouldbeimproved.Forexample…”„Avoid“lecturing”totheauthors.TypesofPeerReview„Single-blind„Mostcommon;authorsareblindedtoreviewers„Double-blind„Reviewersareadditionallyblindedtoauthors„Open„Neitherreviewersnorauthorsareblinded;reviewersnames(andreviews)maybepubliclyavailable„Post-publicationPeerReview„Blogs,onlinecomments,etc.Moreformalsystemsforpost-publicationvettingmaysoonbeavailable.PeerReview:ProcessMysystem:„1.Scantheabstract.„2.Jumptothedata:reviewthetablesandfiguresfirst.„Drawyourownconclusions.„Dothetablesandfiguresstandontheirown?„Arethereanyobviousstatisticalerrors?„Isthererepetitiveinformation?„3.Readthepaperoncethrough.„Dotheauthorsconclusionsmatchtheirdata?„Isthepaperclearlywritten,ordidyoustruggletogetthroughit?Youshouldnothavetostruggle!„Isthelengthofthepaperjustifiedgiventheamountofnewinformationthatthedataprovide?PeerReview:Process4.Readtheintroductioncarefully.„Isitsufficientlysuccinct?„Doesitroughlyfollow:known-->unknown-->researchquestion/hypothesis?„Isthereaclearstatementofthehypothesesoraimofthestudy?„Istheredetailedinformationaboutwhatwasdonethatbelongsinthemethods?„Isthereinformationaboutwhatwasfoundthatbelongsinresults?„Istheredis