Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0 - (Page 15)
Reviewers’ Information Pack
Supporting Peer-Review 7. A BRIEF GUIDE TO REVIEWING
7.3. Conducting the Review (continued)
Structure
Is the article clearly laid out? Are all the key elements present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions? Consider each element in turn: • Title: Does it clearly describe the article? • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements? • Results: This is where the author / s should explain in words what he / she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence? You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted? Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics advise the editor when you submit your report. Any interpretation should not be included in this section. • Conclusion / Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward? • Language: If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the science, you do not need to correct the English. You may wish to bring it to the attention of the editor, however. Finally, on balance, when considering the whole article, do the figures and tables inform the reader; are they an important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g. bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical.
Graphical Abstracts and Highlights
You may also be requested to review a graphical abstract or highlight. A Graphical Abstract is a single, concise, pictorial and visual summary of the main findings of the article. This could either be the concluding figure from the article or a figure that is specially designed for the purpose, which captures the content of the article for readers at a single glance. Highlights are mandatory for some of our journals. They consist of a short collection of bullet points that convey the core findings of the article and should be submitted in a separate file in the online submission system. Please use ‘Highlights’ in the file name and include 3 to 5 bullet points (maximum 85 characters, including spaces, per bullet point). See http://www.elsevier.com/highlights for examples. • Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction is one to two paragraphs long. It should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what findings of others, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, hypothesis (es); general experimental design or method. • Methodology: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed?
Previous Research
If the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?
www.elsevier.com/reviewers
15
http://www.elsevier.com/highlights
http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers
http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0
Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0
Table of Contents
1. About Elsevier
1.1. A Short History of Elsevier
2. About Peer-Review
2.1. What Is Peer-Review?
2.2. Who Are Reviewers?
2.3. Why Reviewers Review?
2.4. Peer-Review Process
2.5. Types of Peer-Review
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
3.2. Promptness
3.3. Confidentiality
3.4. Standards of Objectivity
3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.7. Adherence to Elsevier Publishing Ethics
4. Peer-Review System
4.1. Elsevier Editorial System (EES)
4.2. Tools to Help
5. Supporting Our Reviewers
5.1. Online Support
5.2. Training
6. Listening to Our Reviewers
6.1. Reviewer Feedback Programme
6.2. Reviewers’ Home
6.3. Elsevier and Sense About Science Reviewer Survey
7. A Brief Guide to Reviewing
7.1. Purpose of Peer-Review
7.2. On Being Asked to Review
7.3. Conducting the Review
7.4. Communicating Your Report to the Editor
Reviewers' Information Pack / Version 2.0
https://www.nxtbookmedia.com