General Guidelines in Scientific Writing
- Academic Integrity
- Building an Argument
- Critical Reading
- Critical Writing
- Figures and Tables
- Paragraphs
- Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing
- Peer-review
- Response to Reviewers’ Critiques
- Plagiarism
- Writing Tips and Tools
- Types or Styles of Writing
- How to evaluate online information resources
- Miscellaneous
Preparing Scholarly Work
Preparing for a Publication
Peer-review
Purpose of peer review:
- Determine whether the manuscript is within the scope of the journal
- Ensure that its content is accurate, rigorous, and original
Types of peer review:
Single-blind review – the reviewers know who the author is but the author does not who are the reviewers. The anonymity of the reviewers is intended to make it easier for them to give full and honest feedback on an article, without fearing that the author will hold their feedback against them. Critics of single-blind review argue that reviewers might be influenced by knowing who is the author.
Double-blind review – the reviewers don’t know who is the author and the author does not who are the reviewers of the article. Many researchers prefer double-blind review because they believe it will give their paper a fairer chance than a single-blind review. It can avoid the risk of a paper suffering from the unintended bias of reviewers who know the seniority, gender, or nationality of the author. However, even if you have anonymized your paper, the reviewers may not be able to avoid discerning your identity, especially if you work in a very specialized field.
Open review – the reviewers know who the author is and the author knows who are the reviewers. Open review may also include publishing the names of the reviewers and even the reviewers’ reports alongside the article. Some open review journals also publish earlier versions of your article, enabling the reader to see what revisions were made as a result of peer review. The advantages for authors of open peer review is that you might receive more constructive and polite reviewer comments, if the referees know that a signed version of their report is going to be published. However, there are concerns that researchers who are invited to review may be less inclined to do so under an open model, where their name and report will be published (Taylor & Francis, 2020).
Responding to peer review
In our response to peer review, we need to:
- Read comments objectively and be sure to understand what is being said
- Reflect on each comment and reconcile them to your manuscript’s purpose and intent
- Ensure the manuscript communicates information clearly to the reader
- Rewrite with clarity and logical progression/ presentation of information
- Update bibliography as needed (more recent research or articles may have been published since submission)
For more information on the peer review process, please review the following resources.
Articles
- Walker, R. and da Silva, P.R. (2015). Emerging trend in peer-review: a survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience.
- Smith, M.L., Levkoff, S.E., and Ory, M.G. (2016). Community case study article type: criteria for submission and peer review. Frontiers in Public Health.
Tutorials & Guides
- Monash University Library (2016). Quick guide to peer reviewed articles.
- Oxford University. Oxford LibGuides (2020). Getting published: peer review.
Videos
- American Chemical Society (2019). The peer review process.
- Baruch Library (2010). What are Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Articles?
- Bond, J. (2016). What is peer review?
- NCSU Libraries (2014). Peer review in 3 minutes.
- University of Minnesota, Department of Writing Studies (2013). Peer review: commenting strategies.