Loading...

Should i buy an information sciences term paper 30 days us letter size rewriting


Should i buy a information sciences term paper for me single spaced business formatting 7 days

Write My Essay, Please! Text Size These days, students can hire online companies to do all their coursework, from papers to final exams.Is this ethical, or even legal? stalkadam/Flickr A colleague tells the following story.

A student in an undergraduate course recently submitted a truly first-rate term paper 22 Sep 2016 - As junior scientists develop their expertise and make names for themselves, they are increasingly likely to receive invitations to review research manuscripts. It's an important skill and service to the scientific community, but the learning curve can be particularly steep. Writing a good review requires expertise  .A student in an undergraduate course recently submitted a truly first-rate term paper.

In form, it was extremely well crafted, exhibiting a level of writing far beyond the typical undergraduate.In substance, it did a superb job of analyzing the text and offered a number of trenchant insights.There was only one problem: It markedly exceeded the quality of any other assignment the student had submitted all semester Best website to order an term paper information sciences British Premium Custom writing US Letter Size.

There was only one problem: It markedly exceeded the quality of any other assignment the student had submitted all semester.

She used several plagiarism-detection programs to determine if the student had cut and pasted text from another source, but each of these searches turned up nothing.She asked him point blank, "Did you write this, or did someone else write it for you?" The student immediately confessed.

He had purchased the custom-written paper from an online essay-writing service.

The teacher believed this conduct represented a serious breach of academic ethics.The student had submitted an essay written by someone else as his own.He had not indicated that he hadn't written it.He hadn't given any credit to the essay's true author, whose name he did not know.And he was prepared to accept credit for both the essay and the course, despite the fact that he had not done the required work.

The instructor severely admonished the student and gave him an F for the assignment.But the roots of this problem go far deeper than an isolated case of ghostwriting.Essay writing has become a cottage industry premised on systematic flaunting of the most basic aims of higher education.The very fact that such services exist reflects a deep and widespread misunderstanding of why colleges and universities ask students to write essays in the first place.These services have names such as , , and .

claims that "70% of Students use Essay Writing service at least once sic " and boasts that all its writers have M.Some of these Web sites offer testimonials from satisfied customers.One crows that he received a B+ on a ghostwritten history essay he submitted at a prestigious Ivy League institution.Another marvels at the scholarly standards and dedication of the essay writers, one of whom actually made two unsolicited revisions "absolutely free." Another customer pledges, "I will use your essay writing service again, and leave the essay writing to the professionals." Such claims raise troubling questions.

First, is the use of these services a form of plagiarism? Not exactly, because plagiarism implies stealing someone else's work and calling it one's own.In this case, assuming the essay-writing services are actually providing brand-new essays, no one else's work is being stolen without consent.Nevertheless, the work is being used without attribution, and the students are claiming credit for work they never did.In short, the students are cheating, not learning.

Most essay-writing services evince little or no commitment to helping their customers understand their essay topics or hone their skills as thinkers and writers.They do not ask students to jot down preliminary ideas or submit rough drafts for editing and critique.They do not even encourage them to pose questions about the subject matter.Instead, the services do all the work for them, requesting only three things: the topic, the deadline, and the payment.Second, how do these essays manage to slip past an instructor undetected? If most institutions knew their students were using essay-writing services, they would undoubtedly subject them to disciplinary proceedings.

But the use of such services can be difficult to detect, unless the instructor makes the effort to compare the content and quality of each essay with other work the student has submitted over the course of a semester.But what if the entire semester's work has been ghostwritten? Another disturbing question concerns the writers who produce such essays.Why would someone who has earned a master's degree or Ph.participate in such ethically an dubious activity? One answer may be that many academics find themselves in dead-end, part-time teaching positions that pay so poorly that they cannot make ends meet, and essay writing can be quite a lucrative business.

For students who can wait up to 5 days, one service charges $20 per page, but for those who need the essay within 16 hours, the price quadruples to $80 per page.The "works cited" portion of essays can generate additional revenue.The same service provides one reference per page at no additional cost, but if students feel that they need more citations, the charge is $1 per source.Some struggling academics may also view ghostwriting as a form of vengeance on an educational system that saddled them with huge debts and few prospects for a viable academic career.A far deeper question is this: Why aren't the students who use these services crafting their own essays to begin with? Some may simply be short on time and juggling competing commitments.

As the cost of college continues to escalate, more and more students need to hold down part-time or even full-time jobs.Some are balancing school with marriage, parenthood, and other family responsibilities.The sales pitch of the essay-writing services reassures students that they are learning what they need to know and merely "lack the time needed to get it down on paper." But more disturbingly, some students may question the very value of writing term papers.After all, they may ask, how many contemporary jobs really require such archaic forms of writing? And what is the point of doing research and formulating an argument when reams of information on virtually any topic are available at the click of a button on the Internet? Some may even doubt the relevance of the whole college experience.

The idea of paying someone else to do your work for you has become increasingly commonplace in our broader culture, even in the realm of writing.It is well known that many actors, athletes, politicians, and businesspeople have contracted with uncredited ghostwriters to produce their memoirs for them.At the same time, higher education has been transformed into an industry, another sphere of economic activity where goods and services are bought and sold.

By this logic, a student who pays a fair market price for it has earned whatever grade it brings.In fact, many institutions of higher education market not the challenges provided by their course of study, but the ease with which busy students can complete it in the midst of other daily responsibilities.The shrewd shopper, it seems, invests the least time and effort necessary to get the goods.But when students outsource their essays to third-party services, they are devaluing the very degree programs they pursue.

Should i buy college term paper information sciences bluebook 10 days a4 (british/european) freshman

They are making a mockery of the very idea of education by putting its trappings - assignments, grades, and degrees - ahead of real learning.

They're cheating their instructors, who issue grades on the presumption that they represent a student's actual work.They are also cheating their classmates who do invest the time and effort necessary to earn their own grades 2 Jun 2011 - I think you can get a free 30-day trial, so it's at least worth checking out. Especially with this last book, it totally saved me from having hundreds of (virtual) stacks of thousands of (virtual) scraps of paper. For me, it was vitally important that all non-book related reading be as mindless as possible. I binged on  .They are also cheating their classmates who do invest the time and effort necessary to earn their own grades.

But ultimately, students who use essay-writing services are cheating no one more than themselves.They are depriving themselves of the opportunity to ask, "What new insights and perspectives might I gain in the process of writing this paper?" instead of "How can I check this box and get my credential?" Some might argue that even students who use essay services are forced to learn something in order to graduate.After all, when they sit down to take exams, those who have absorbed nothing at all will be exposed Writing and Publishing Your Research Findings NCBI NIH.

After all, when they sit down to take exams, those who have absorbed nothing at all will be exposed.

That may be true in a traditional classroom, but these days, more and more degree programs are moving online -- and in response, more and more Internet-based test-taking services have sprung up.One version of " " called boasts, "Just let us know what the exam is about and we will find the right expert who will log in on your behalf, finish the exam within the time limit and get you a guaranteed grade for the exam itself." And why stop with exams? Why not follow this path to its logical conclusion? If the entire course is online, why shouldn't students hire someone to enroll and complete all its requirements on their behalf? In fact, " " sites have already begun to appear.One site called My Math Genius promises to get customers a "guaranteed grade," with experts who will complete all assignments and "ace your final and midterm." And why should the trend toward vicarious performance stop with education? How long must we wait until some intrepid entrepreneur founds "" " or " ?" Meanwhile, the proliferation of essay-writing and exam-taking services is merely a symptom of a much deeper and more pervasive disorder.

For that reason, the solution is not merely tougher laws and stiffer penalties.We need a series of probing discussions in classrooms all over the country, encouraging students to reflect on the real purpose of education: the new people and ideas a student encounters, and the enlightenment that comes when an assignment truly challenges a student's heart and mind.Perhaps an essay assignment is in order? Writing and Publishing Your Research Findings † †Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, TX ‡Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, TX §Clinical Sciences, Duke-National University of Singapore, Singapore Reprints: Charles T.Quinn, MD, MS, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard Dallas, TX [email protected] c Abstract Writing clearly is critical to the success of your scientific career.

Unfortunately, this skill is not taught in medical school or postgraduate training.This article summarizes our approach to the writing and publication of your research.Here we focus on empirical or experimental reports of translational and clinically oriented research.We review the process of choosing what to write, how to write it clearly, and how to navigate the process of submission and publication.Keywords: medical writing, career development INTRODUCTION Articulate Writing Is Critical to Scientific Success This article summarizes material presented in a course that we have taught at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.

The material is a synthesis of material from a variety of sources (see References), to which we have added our own, sometimes idiosyncratic, suggestions for developing peer-reviewed journal reports of clinical and translational research.We particularly want to acknowledge Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers by Mimi Zeiger 1 at the University of California at San Francisco, whose book we highly recommend.Writing clearly and accurately is critical to the success of your scientific career.If you do not write clearly, your article will not be cited.If you are not cited, you will not get promoted.

If you do not get promoted, you will not have a job.Writing clearly to maximize your likelihood of being cited by others is key to your scientific survival.Published research is your only final product.A poorly written report could mean that you have wasted years conducting your study, because what you have done will not be cited or known.The threat of career failure should be a powerful motivator for writing clearly, as is doing the very best science that one can.Each article tells a story, but there is no “one true path” to writing.We each learn how to use our talents, overcome our deficiencies, and develop our skills differently.Each article we write is less difficult, but none is ever easy.To avoid feeling overwhelmed by the effort, we suggest that you approach writing as a series of questions to be clearly answered.

What was the research question? Why does the answer matter? What was done? What was found? Has anyone else found that (or not)? What might it mean? What limitations or qualifications apply to the findings? Define What to Report What are you going to write? Obviously, the primary paper focuses on the main hypotheses that you tested.But there may be several secondary hypotheses and maybe a couple of tertiary papers that are hypothesis generating.Do not write trivial papers (third-rate papers with too small samples).They take too much time, are not cited, and have minimal to no payoff.

So, consider at the outset what aspects of the project are to be submitted, where, and in what order.What is the primary paper? Are there secondary papers? Clinical investigation often requires many people, so consider which colleagues might like to take the lead on a secondary paper.That is, depending on the size of the study and the contributions, needs, and expertise of your multidisciplinary research team, think about additional papers for others than yourself.Getting Started How often have you heard, “I have writer’s block”? What does that mean? Everybody who has attended medical, dental, or nursing school can write.

Thus, “writer’s block” is a fiction— an excuse.

The underlying fear may be that either one cannot think clearly enough to be able to say what was done (in which case, a career change is indicated!) or one is afraid that the product will not be “good enough” and therefore procrastinates.To overcome “writer’s block,” simply realize at the outset that most of the words in the first draft will not make it to the final draft.Once you have something on paper, however, you can edit it—repeatedly.To get it on paper, dictate, type, or handwrite it (whatever is fastest for you).We recommend that you start with an outline.

The outline is straightforward: title, abstract, introduction, methods, results (with tables and figures), discussion, conclusions, references, acknowledgements, and disclosures.Then write a topic sentence for each paragraph in each section.The outline and the topic sentences should take you about an hour-and-a-half to write.Then start to write each paragraph in the 4 key sections (introduction, methods, results, and discussion).One place to begin is with the protocol that you followed to conduct the study.

The protocol contains the aims, hypotheses/questions, rationale, and methods.

How to get a information sciences term paper confidentiality double spaced undergrad. (yrs 3-4) mla british

Thus, the protocol is the basis for the first drafts of the introduction and methods.You may need to update the significance (to beef up the introduction) and to cite the newest relevant literature.Borrow from what you have done to begin 24 Oct 2012 - These days, students can hire online companies to do all their coursework, from papers to final exams.   One answer may be that many academics find themselves in dead-end, part-time teaching positions that pay so poorly that they cannot make ends meet, and essay writing can be quite a lucrative  .Borrow from what you have done to begin.

Recall that journals limit articles to 3000 to 4000 words.

If each paragraph has 200 words, you have to write 18 to 20 paragraphs (Table 1).The introduction has 3 to 4 paragraphs (never longer than 2 manuscript pages); discussion has 5; results typically has 4 to 6, depending on the number of questions; leaving 5 to 6 for methods 22 Oct 2008 - However, editors, reviewers, and the research community will not consider these reasons when assessing your work. … ??? Get promoted? Get funding? PhD degree? 14. ▫ Scientists publish to share with the scientific. COMMUNITY something that advances, not repeats, knowledge and understanding in a  .The introduction has 3 to 4 paragraphs (never longer than 2 manuscript pages); discussion has 5; results typically has 4 to 6, depending on the number of questions; leaving 5 to 6 for methods.Once you break it down this way, it does not seem so bad.If your patient sample is not extremely simple in composition, use a CONSORT chart.3,4 This chart explicitly and clearly shows how you obtained the evaluable sample.

Journals may require this chart, especially for clinical trials.If 2 (or more) groups were compared, describe and compare these groups at baseline.Serious adverse events, tolerability, attrition, and dosing may be in subsequent tables.People are not schizophrenics or diabetics.They are patients with schizophrenia or diabetes.Why participants? Because they chose to participate by giving consent.Subjects, such as rats, do not give consent.

It is critical that the tables and figures carry the message.Do not repeat in the text what is in the tables and figures.Why? People can read the tables and figures.Use the text to direct the reader to the tables and figures.A sentence or 2 in the text to draw attention to a few key findings might be useful in the results section, but do not comment on every item in each table.

Tables and Figures Figures and tables should stand alone.That is, each should be understood without reference to the text.The text simply alerts the reader when to look for them.So, if you use abbreviations or acronyms here, spell them out in the footnotes and legends.A figure has a title and legend that explains it; a table has a title and footnotes, if necessary, but no legend.

Each figure or table should be on a separate sheet of paper.Remember, readers may use your tables and figures as slides.Make them clear and self-contained so that the slide has meaning.Provide clear names for each column of your table.The study variables (eg, age, sex, severe adverse events, remission rates) are typically in the leftmost column, and each defines a row.

The data are in the columns to the right.The rows should have few to no horizontal lines.Whenever you use a percentage in tables (and elsewhere), give the numerator and denominator so the reader can see how you derived it.

We like to put significant P values in bold, but always follow journal style.

Give the actual P value, not “NS” or “<0.” Only use decimal places that are informative.Good figures are worth a thousand words and probably several tables.Figures should show your primary comparisons.

The reader should be able to look at the figures and tables and know what the questions and answers are without reading the text.Avoid 3-dimensional figures and gratuitous color and shading.Most of the ink used to print your table should represent your data, not explanatory or decorative material.Creating clear and meaningful figures is a skill one learns.Texts by Tufte 6 and Goodman and Edwards 2 can aid you in good design.Discussion Next to the abstract, we find the discussion to be the most difficult part to write.We may be excited about what we have found and have lots to say about it.Here is a way to organize the discussion (Table 8).

Elements of the Discussion The first paragraph summarizes what you found.“This study was designed to determine whether A is better than B with regard to X.We found A was better than B in terms of tolerability, side effects, and remission rates, but not in terms of Y.” If there was a second question, then the findings follow in the same first paragraph.You told them the questions (hypotheses) at the end of the introduction.

Avoid repeating the results; you just stated them.The second paragraph of discussion addresses the question: “Has anybody else found anything like or different from what you found?” That is, how does it compare to the literature? If your findings are different, why? Is it the method, the sample, or measurement differences? The third paragraph addresses the theoretical or clinical implications of the findings.What do these results mean about the utility or mechanisms of the study treatment or the pathophysiology of the disease being studied? The fourth paragraph highlights limitations (and strengths).

Help me write an term paper information sciences asa us letter size writing from scratch business

Limitations commonly include design, methods, generalizability, and internal validity.

How certain are you about the results? A small study cannot be generalized.Measurements may have been too infrequent or too insensitive to detect an effect We particularly want to acknowledge Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers by Mimi Zeiger at the University of California at San Francisco, whose book we highly recommend. Writing   The threat of career failure should be a powerful motivator for writing clearly, as is doing the very best science that one can..Measurements may have been too infrequent or too insensitive to detect an effect.

How does that affect certainty? Do not overstate the certainty of your findings.If you do not acknowledge the limitations of your report, the reviewers will make you Get an term paper information sciences Editing APA US Letter Size 114 pages / 31350 words.

If you do not acknowledge the limitations of your report, the reviewers will make you.

Be honest, but this is your chance to frame the limitations in the best light Get an term paper information sciences Editing APA US Letter Size 114 pages / 31350 words.Be honest, but this is your chance to frame the limitations in the best light.Do not feel embarrassed to list and discuss them jreference.com/lab-report/help-me-with-ecology-lab-report-custom-writing-british-premium.

Do not feel embarrassed to list and discuss them.

If your study has particular strengths, you may also highlight them here.This may soften the blow of the limitations.Three sentences are enough—only 1 paragraph.A conclusion is: “A is better than B for these kinds of patients.

” Some journals like you to suggest policy, economic, or practice implications—this is your final sentence: “Since X is better than Y and we have no other treatment for these patients, we recommend despite the limitations of this first trial that X might be a better treatment, but confirmatory studies are needed.” A common phrase that ends the conclusion is “more studies are needed.Instead, state what studies you think are needed.References Leave the insertion of citations for the end.Where do references come up in the article? Largely in the introduction (7–10), methods (6–9), and discussion (15–20) (maximum, 30–40).The few references in the introduction should help lay out the problem and say why it is important.An introduction is NOT a literature review.

The references in methods refer to measurements or techniques described in detail elsewhere.You do not have to describe them again; reference them.If you use someone else’s idea, give appropriate credit.Remember, that person could be a reviewer.You do not have to cite everything, just that which is immediately relevant to support your point.

Rely on peer-reviewed literature, reports, and reviews.Acknowledgements Acknowledgements are undervalued by authors but highly valued by colleagues.Cite those people who substantially assisted in the project (eg, research assistants, key staff).Remember all the people who truly contributed to the success of the study, but who are not authors, and recognize them here.

Disclosures Journals have different but increasingly strict rules about disclosure.If you are in doubt about a relationship, disclose it.Only underdisclosing, not overdisclosing, will embarrass you.GETTING IT PUBLISHED Authorship This is a thorny issue.

If you are the principal investigator, we strongly advise that you meet with your study team when you launch a study to talk about authorship.Consider who will write up the primary question and key secondary questions.Talk it through early, so everybody knows the expectations from the beginning.This is especially important for junior faculty who need to know, after spending a couple of years on the study, what are they going to get out of it.Who is supposed to be an author? Most journals have specific requirements.

Those who have contributed to the design and execution of the project and helped in developing the manuscript are logical possible coauthors.Just raising funds or being the chairman of the department does not qualify (use the acknowledgements for these individuals).Typically, hired or support staff are not authors, but there may be exceptions, depending on their contributions.Students or fellows can certainly qualify if they make a substantive contribution either at the beginning, during the data analysis, or with the writing.For large or multisite studies, it is extremely important to have a publication committee.

Try to get on the publication committee.Some studies base authorship on enrollment, scientific expertise, execution of the study, and leadership.Have these discussions early and be up-front about authorship.Most people do not like to talk about authorship (as they do not like to talk about their salary).Younger faculty need to be first, second, or third author.There are many reasons to rewrite (Table 9).

We suggest that you go after specific targets with each rewrite.The first author should not have to write everything if coauthors are to merit the recognition.Once you get a draft, share it with coauthors and direct each one to a task.” You distribute the work and have it come back to you.You have final editorial say as the first author.It also helps you to see how your coauthors interpret what you have written, what questions they have, and what changes they suggest.

Reasons to Rewrite When you ask coauthors to rewrite, set the time frame and tell them exactly what you want them to do.

“Please give me feedback on the results section.

Order a custom term paper information sciences double spaced rewriting academic standard

” Everybody has a large pile of things to do.Without a scheduled time limit, the article goes to the bottom of the pile.Sequence the writers, so somebody does one section and someone else does another Preparation and Submission of Manuscripts – Journal Publishing Agreement – Cover Letter – Manuscript   Failure to adhere to one or more of the ACS Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research will result   Communications, 30 days for major revisions of Articles, and 21 days for major revisions of..Sequence the writers, so somebody does one section and someone else does another.

But remember, the manuscript should not read as if there was a different author for each section.So, you have to ensure that the entire text “flows” and is stylistically consistent Handwriting vs typing is the pen still mightier than the keyboard nbsp.So, you have to ensure that the entire text “flows” and is stylistically consistent.Table 9 shows areas of attention for rewrites.Double-check the methods to be sure the words are totally explicit, specific, and detailed.Make sure your tables and figures, if read alone, tell the results all by themselves jreference.com/lab-report/buy-an-ecology-lab-report-standard-ph-d-48-hours.Make sure your tables and figures, if read alone, tell the results all by themselves.Outside Readers Once you and coauthors have written the article to its “final version,” send it to 2 people who have no idea what you do, but who are intelligent and can communicate.They do not have to be experts in your area.Then ask them to tell you in their own words what you found.

That way you will know whether they got the message.Choosing a Journal In choosing a journal, select one that is highly regarded with a high citation index.The journal content should match what you are reporting, so the readership will be interested in what you have to say.Some journals restrict length a lot—some less so, which might be a consideration in choosing a journal.Pick a journal as your first target that is bit of a long shot (sort of a stretch), but have in mind a second choice if the first rejects the paper.

It is helpful if your second choice has similar requirements as the first.For example, you do not want to be limited to 4000 words for the first journal but to 2500 words for the second.Rejections and Resubmissions Rejections and negative reviews can be very frustrating.Read the reviews through once, then put them aside for a while.If you are given the opportunity to resubmit, do not formulate your responses yet.Return several days later and read the reviews again.You will have a clearer mind then, and you will be less likely to respond angrily or with condescension.Some are due to misunderstanding, which means that you were not clear.The reviewers took the time to read your article.If they did not “get it,” it is your writing.Sometimes the editorial response highlights the problem and seems to say either “Please fix this and resubmit” or “It’s a long shot, but we’ll re-review it if you want to try—no guarantee though.” Always respond item-by-item to each of the reviewers’ comments in a detailed letter.

A negative tone in your responses will work against you.We like to write the response letter before revising the paper.Think through everything you want to do, then revise the paper and show your changes.Always include your coauthors in this process, because they are signing off on what you are resubmitting.

CONCLUSION We hope this synopsis is helpful.But what you want to get back from the reviewers is “This is a clearly written, succinct report of X.

Recall that the reviewers are your helpers, but they cannot help improve your manuscript (or science) if you have not been clear in telling the story, specific in describing what you’ve done, and to the point throughout the paper.Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers.Medical Writing: A Prescription for Clarity.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2006.The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials.Statistics and ethics in medical research: study design.The Visual Display of Quantitative Information.22, 2016 , 5:00 PM As junior scientists develop their expertise and make names for themselves, they are increasingly likely to receive invitations to review research manuscripts.

It’s an important skill and service to the scientific community, but the learning curve can be particularly steep.Writing a good review requires expertise in the field, an intimate knowledge of research methods, a critical mind, the ability to give fair and constructive feedback, and sensitivity to the feelings of authors on the receiving end.As a range of institutions and organizations around the world celebrate the essential role of peer review in upholding the quality of published research this week, Science Careers shares collected insights and advice about how to review papers from researchers across the spectrum.The responses have been edited for clarity and brevity.What do you consider when deciding whether to accept an invitation to review a paper? I consider four factors: whether I'm sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic to offer an intelligent assessment, how interesting I find the research topic, whether I’m free of any conflict of interest, and whether I have the time.

If the answer to all four questions is yes, then I’ll usually agree to review.- , professor of cognitive neuroscience at Cardiff University in the United Kingdom I am very open-minded when it comes to accepting invitations to review.I see it as a tit-for-tat duty: Since I am an active researcher and I submit papers, hoping for really helpful, constructive comments, it just makes sense that I do the same for others.So accepting an invitation for me is the default, unless a paper is really far from my expertise or my workload doesn’t allow it.The only other factor I pay attention to is the scientific integrity of the journal.

I would not want to review for a journal that does not offer an unbiased review process.- , senior lecturer in work psychology at Loughborough University in the United Kingdom I'm more prone to agree to do a review if it involves a system or method in which I have a particular expertise.

Write a persuasive cover letter for your research paper submission nbsp

And I'm not going to take on a paper to review unless I have the time.For every manuscript of my own that I submit to a journal, I review at least a few papers, so I give back to the system plenty.

I've heard from some reviewers that they're more likely to accept an invitation to review from a more prestigious journal and don't feel as bad about rejecting invitations from more specialized journals .

I've heard from some reviewers that they're more likely to accept an invitation to review from a more prestigious journal and don't feel as bad about rejecting invitations from more specialized journals.

That makes things a lot harder for editors of the less prestigious journals, and that's why I am more inclined to take on reviews from them.If I've never heard of the authors, and particularly if they're from a less developed nation, then I'm also more likely to accept the invitation.I do this because editors might have a harder time landing reviewers for these papers too, and because people who aren't deeply connected into our research community also deserve quality feedback.Finally, I am more inclined to review for journals with double-blind reviewing practices and journals that are run by academic societies, because those are both things that I want to support and encourage.- , professor of biology at California State University, Dominguez Hills I usually consider first the relevance to my own expertise.

I will turn down requests if the paper is too far removed from my own research areas, since I may not be able to provide an informed review.Having said that, I tend to define my expertise fairly broadly for reviewing purposes. I am more willing to review for journals that I read or publish in. Before I became an editor, I used to be fairly eclectic in the journals I reviewed for, but now I tend to be more discerning, since my editing duties take up much of my reviewing time.

- Once you’ve agreed to complete a review, how do you approach the paper? Unless it’s for a journal I know well, the first thing I do is check what format the journal prefers the review to be in.Some journals have structured review criteria; others just ask for general and specific comments.Knowing this in advance helps save time later.I almost never print out papers for review; I prefer to work with the electronic version. I always read the paper sequentially, from start to finish, making comments on the PDF as I go along.

I look for specific indicators of research quality, asking myself questions such as: Are the background literature and study rationale clearly articulated? Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous work? Are the methods robust and well controlled? Are the reported analyses appropriate? (I usually pay close attention to the use—and misuse—of frequentist statistics.) Is the presentation of results clear and accessible? To what extent does the Discussion place the findings in a wider context and achieve a balance between interpretation and useful speculation versus tedious waffling? - Chambers I subconsciously follow a checklist.First, is it well written? That usually becomes apparent by the Methods section.(Then, throughout, if what I am reading is only partly comprehensible, I do not spend a lot of energy trying to make sense of it, but in my review I will relay the ambiguities to the author.) I should also have a good idea of the hypothesis and context within the first few pages, and it matters whether the hypothesis makes sense or is interesting.

Then I read the Methods section very carefully.I do not focus so much on the statistics—a quality journal should have professional statistics review for any accepted manuscript—but I consider all the other logistics of study design where it’s easy to hide a fatal flaw. Mostly I am concerned with credibility: Could this methodology have answered their question? Then I look at how convincing the results are and how careful the description is. The parts of the Discussion I focus on most are context and whether the authors make claims that overreach the data.

This is done all the time, to varying degrees.I want statements of fact, not opinion or speculation, backed up by data.- , emergency care physician and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco Most journals don't have special instructions, so I just read the paper, usually starting with the Abstract, looking at the figures, and then reading the paper in a linear fashion.I read the digital version with an open word processing file, keeping a list of “major items” and “minor items” and making notes as I go.There are a few aspects that I make sure to address, though I cover a lot more ground as well.

First, I consider how the question being addressed fits into the current status of our knowledge.Second, I ponder how well the work that was conducted actually addresses the central question posed in the paper.(In my field, authors are under pressure to broadly sell their work, and it's my job as a reviewer to address the validity of such claims.) Third, I make sure that the design of the methods and analyses are appropriate.- McGlynn First, I read a printed version to get an overall impression.

What is the paper about? How is it structured? I also pay attention to the schemes and figures; if they are well designed and organized, then in most cases the entire paper has also been carefully thought out.When diving in deeper, first I try to assess whether all the important papers are cited in the references, as that also often correlates with the quality of the manuscript itself.Then, right in the Introduction, you can often recognize whether the authors considered the full context of their topic.After that, I check whether all the experiments and data make sense, paying particular attention to whether the authors carefully designed and performed the experiments and whether they analyzed and interpreted the results in a comprehensible way.It is also very important that the authors guide you through the whole article and explain every table, every figure, and every scheme.

As I go along, I use a highlighter and other pens, so the manuscript is usually colorful after I read it.Besides that, I make notes on an extra sheet.- , doctoral candidate in organic chemistry at the Technical University of Kaiserslautern in Germany I first familiarize myself with the manuscript and read relevant snippets of the literature to make sure that the manuscript is coherent with the larger scientific domain.Then I scrutinize it section by section, noting if there are any missing links in the story and if certain points are under- or overrepresented.I also scout for inconsistencies in the portrayal of facts and observations, assess whether the exact technical specifications of the study materials and equipment are described, consider the adequacy of the sample size and the quality of the figures, and assess whether the findings in the main manuscript are aptly supplemented by the supplementary section and whether the authors have followed the journal’s submission guidelines.

- , postdoctoral research fellow at the Earth-Life Science Institute in Tokyo I print out the paper, as I find it easier to make comments on the printed pages than on an electronic reader.I read the manuscript very carefully the first time, trying to follow the authors’ argument and predict what the next step could be.At this first stage, I try to be as open-minded as I can.I don’t have a formalized checklist, but there are a number of questions that I generally use.

Does the theoretical argument make sense? Does it contribute to our knowledge, or is it old wine in new bottles? Is there an angle the authors have overlooked? This often requires doing some background reading, sometimes including some of the cited literature, about the theory presented in the manuscript.

I then delve into the Methods and Results sections.Are the methods suitable to investigate the research question and test the hypotheses? Would there have been a better way to test these hypotheses or to analyze these results? Is the statistical analysis sound and justified? Could I replicate the results using the information in the Methods and the description of the analysis? I even selectively check individual numbers to see whether they are statistically plausible.I also carefully look at the explanation of the results and whether the conclusions the authors draw are justified and connected with the broader argument made in the paper.If there are any aspects of the manuscript that I am not familiar with, I try to read up on those topics or consult other colleagues.

Write my essay please the atlantic

- Selenko I spend a fair amount of time looking at the figures.

In addition to considering their overall quality, sometimes figures raise questions about the methods used to collect or analyze the data, or they fail to support a finding reported in the paper and warrant further clarification.I also want to know whether the authors’ conclusions are adequately supported by the results Supporting Information Statement – Graphics – Illustrations – Color – Chemical Structures – Tables –   Research). Authors should suggest at the time of submission which category best fits their paper. In addition to regular full-length papers, other types of manuscripts are also published:   Major Revision: 30 days..I also want to know whether the authors’ conclusions are adequately supported by the results.

Conclusions that are overstated or out of sync with the findings will adversely impact my review and recommendations.- , professor of neurology and otolaryngology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland I generally read on the computer and start with the Abstract to get an initial impression.Then I read the paper as a whole, thoroughly and from beginning to end, taking notes as I read The editor must believe that your paper will increase the impact factor for that journal. The editor must be able to easily understand what is new in your paper and why they should care. Therefore, you must subtly articulate how your paper will provide important information that will be referenced by other researchers in the  .

Then I read the paper as a whole, thoroughly and from beginning to end, taking notes as I read.

For me, the first question is this: Is the research sound? And secondly, how can it be improved? Basically, I am looking to see if the research question is well motivated; if the data are sound; if the analyses are technically correct; and, most importantly, if the findings support the claims made in the paper.- Walsh The main aspects I consider are the novelty of the article and its impact on the field jreference.com/term-paper/cultural-science.php.- Walsh The main aspects I consider are the novelty of the article and its impact on the field.I always ask myself what makes this paper relevant and what new advance or contribution the paper represents.Then I follow a routine that will help me evaluate this.First, I check the authors’ publication records in PubMed to get a feel for their expertise in the field.

I also consider whether the article contains a good Introduction and description of the state of the art, as that indirectly shows whether the authors have a good knowledge of the field.Second, I pay attention to the results and whether they have been compared with other similar published studies.Third, I consider whether the results or the proposed methodology have some potential broader applicability or relevance, because in my opinion this is important.Finally, I evaluate whether the methodology used is appropriate.If the authors have presented a new tool or software, I will test it in detail.

- How do you go about drafting the review? Do you sign it? Using a copy of the manuscript that I first marked up with any questions that I had, I write a brief summary of what the paper is about and what I feel about its solidity.Then I run through the specific points I raised in my summary in more detail, in the order they appeared in the paper, providing page and paragraph numbers for most.Finally comes a list of really minor stuff, which I try to keep to a minimum.I then typically go through my first draft looking at the marked-up manuscript again to make sure I didn’t leave out anything important.If I feel there is some good material in the paper but it needs a lot of work, I will write a pretty long and specific review pointing out what the authors need to do.

If the paper has horrendous difficulties or a confused concept, I will specify that but will not do a lot of work to try to suggest fixes for every flaw.I never use value judgments or value-laden adjectives.Nothing is “lousy” or “stupid,” and nobody is “incompetent.” However, as an author your data might be incomplete, or you may have overlooked a huge contradiction in your results, or you may have made major errors in the study design.That’s what I communicate, with a way to fix it if a feasible one comes to mind.

Hopefully, this will be used to make the manuscript better rather than to shame anyone.Overall, I want to achieve an evaluation of the study that is fair, objective, and complete enough to convince both the editor and the authors that I know something about what I’m talking about.I also try to cite a specific factual reason or some evidence for any major criticisms or suggestions that I make.After all, even though you were selected as an expert, for each review the editor has to decide how much they believe in your assessment.- Callaham I use annotations that I made in the PDF to start writing my review; that way I never forget to mention something that occurred to me while reading the paper.

Unless the journal uses a structured review format, I usually begin my review with a general statement of my understanding of the paper and what it claims, followed by a paragraph offering an overall assessment.Then I make specific comments on each section, listing the major questions or concerns.Depending on how much time I have, I sometimes also end with a section of minor comments.I may, for example, highlight an obvious typo or grammatical error, though I don’t pay a lot of attention to these, as it is the authors’ and copyeditors’ responsibility to ensure clear writing.I try to be as constructive as possible.

A review is primarily for the benefit of the editor, to help them reach a decision about whether to publish or not, but I try to make my reviews useful for the authors as well. I always write my reviews as though I am talking to the scientists in person.I try hard to avoid rude or disparaging remarks.The review process is brutal enough scientifically without reviewers making it worse.Since obtaining tenure, I always sign my reviews.

I believe it improves the transparency of the review process, and it also helps me police the quality of my own assessments by making me personally accountable.- Chambers I want to help the authors improve their manuscript and to assist the editor in the decision process by providing a neutral and balanced review of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses and how to potentially improve it.After I have finished reading the manuscript, I let it sink in for a day or so and then I try to decide which aspects really matter.This helps me to distinguish between major and minor issues and also to group them thematically as I draft my review.

My reviews usually start out with a short summary and a highlight of the strengths of the manuscript before briefly listing the weaknesses that I believe should be addressed.

I try to link any criticism I have either to a page number or a quotation from the manuscript to ensure that my argument is understood.I also selectively refer to others’ work or statistical tests to substantiate why I think something should be done differently.I try to be constructive by suggesting ways to improve the problematic aspects, if that is possible, and also try to hit a calm and friendly but also neutral and objective tone.This is not always easy, especially if I discover what I think is a serious flaw in the manuscript.However, I know that being on the receiving end of a review is quite stressful, and a critique of something that is close to one’s heart can easily be perceived as unjust.

I try to write my reviews in a tone and form that I could put my name to, even though reviews in my field are usually double-blind and not signed.- Selenko I'm aiming to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the quality of the paper that will be of use to both the editor and the authors.I think a lot of reviewers approach a paper with the philosophy that they are there to identify flaws.But I only mention flaws if they matter, and I will make sure the review is constructive.

Best website to write an information sciences term paper british ama single spaced us letter size

If I'm pointing out a problem or concern, I substantiate it enough so that the authors can’t say, “Well, that's not correct” or “That's not fair.

” I work to be conversational and factual, and I clearly distinguish statements of fact from my own opinions.I used to sign most of my reviews, but I don't do that anymore Notice to Authors of Papers ACS Publications American Chemical nbsp.I used to sign most of my reviews, but I don't do that anymore.

If you make a practice of signing reviews, then over the years, many of your colleagues will have received reviews with your name on them.Even if you are focused on writing quality reviews and being fair and collegial, it's inevitable that some colleagues will be less than appreciative about the content of the reviews.And if you identify a paper that you think has a substantial error that is not easily fixed, then the authors of this paper will find it hard to not hold a grudge.

I've known too many junior scientists who have been burned from signing their reviews early on in their careers.So now, I only sign my reviews so as to be fully transparent on the rare occasions when I suggest that the authors cite papers of mine, which I only do when my work will remedy factual errors or correct the claim that something has never been addressed before.- McGlynn My review begins with a paragraph summarizing the paper.Then I have bullet points for major comments and for minor comments.Major comments may include suggesting a missing control that could make or break the authors’ conclusions or an important experiment that would help the story, though I try not to recommend extremely difficult experiments that would be beyond the scope of the paper or take forever.

Minor comments may include flagging the mislabeling of a figure in the text or a misspelling that changes the meaning of a common term.Overall, I try to make comments that would make the paper stronger. My tone is very formal, scientific, and in third person.I'm critiquing the work, not the authors.If there is a major flaw or concern, I try to be honest and back it up with evidence.

- , doctoral candidate in cellular and molecular biology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor I start by making a bullet point list of the main strengths and weaknesses of the paper and then flesh out the review with details.I often refer back to my annotated version of the online paper.I usually differentiate between major and minor criticisms and word them as directly and concisely as possible.When I recommend revisions, I try to give clear, detailed feedback to guide the authors.Even if a manuscript is rejected for publication, most authors can benefit from suggestions.

I try to stick to the facts, so my writing tone tends toward neutral.Before submitting a review, I ask myself whether I would be comfortable if my identity as a reviewer was known to the authors.Passing this “identity test” helps ensure that my review is sufficiently balanced and fair.- Boatman-Reich My reviews tend to take the form of a summary of the arguments in the paper, followed by a summary of my reactions and then a series of the specific points that I wanted to raise.Mostly, I am trying to identify the authors’ claims in the paper that I did not find convincing and guide them to ways that these points can be strengthened (or, perhaps, dropped as beyond the scope of what this study can support).

If I find the paper especially interesting (and even if I am going to recommend rejection), I tend to give a more detailed review because I want to encourage the authors to develop the paper (or, maybe, to do a new paper along the lines suggested in the review).My tone is one of trying to be constructive and helpful even though, of course, the authors might not agree with that characterization.- Walsh I try to act as a neutral, curious reader who wants to understand every detail.If there are things I struggle with, I will suggest that the authors revise parts of their paper to make it more solid or broadly accessible.I want to give them honest feedback of the same type that I hope to receive when I submit a paper.

- M ller I start with a brief summary of the results and conclusions as a way to show that I have understood the paper and have a general opinion.I always comment on the form of the paper, highlighting whether it is well written, has correct grammar, and follows a correct structure.Then, I divide the review in two sections with bullet points, first listing the most critical aspects that the authors must address to better demonstrate the quality and novelty of the paper and then more minor points such as misspelling and figure format.When you deliver criticism, your comments should be honest but always respectful and accompanied with suggestions to improve the manuscript.- Al-Shahrour When, and how, do you decide on your recommendation? I make a decision after drafting my review.

I usually sit on the review for a day and then reread it to be sure it is balanced and fair before deciding anything.- Boatman-Reich I usually don’t decide on a recommendation until I’ve read the entire paper, although for poor quality papers, it isn’t always necessary to read everything.- Chambers I only make a recommendation to accept, revise, or reject if the journal specifically requests one.The decision is made by the editor, and my job as a reviewer is to provide a nuanced and detailed report on the paper to support the editor.

- McGlynn The decision comes along during reading and making notes.

If there are serious mistakes or missing parts, then I do not recommend publication.I usually write down all the things that I noticed, good and bad, so my decision does not influence the content and length of my review.- M ller In my experience, most papers go through several rounds of revisions before I would recommend them for publication.Generally, if I can see originality and novelty in a manuscript and the study was carried out in a solid way, then I give a recommendation for “revise and resubmit,” highlighting the need for the analysis strategy, for example, to be further developed.However, if the mechanism being tested does not really provide new knowledge, or if the method and study design are of insufficient quality, then my hopes for a manuscript are rather low.

The length and content of my reviews generally do not relate to the outcome of my decisions.I usually write rather lengthy reviews at the first round of the revision process, and these tend to get shorter as the manuscript then improves in quality.- Selenko Publication is not a binary recommendation.The fact that only 5% of a journal’s readers might ever look at a paper, for example, can’t be used as criteria for rejection, if in fact it is a seminal paper that will impact that field.And we never know what findings will amount to in a few years; many breakthrough studies were not recognized as such for many years.

 So I can only rate what priority I believe the paper should receive for publication today.- Callaham If the research presented in the paper has serious flaws, I am inclined to recommend rejection, unless the shortcoming can be remedied with a reasonable amount of revising.Also, I take the point of view that if the author cannot convincingly explain her study and findings to an informed reader, then the paper has not met the burden for acceptance in the journal.- Walsh My recommendations are inversely proportional to the length of my reviews.

Practical tips on writing a book from 23 brilliant authors neurotribes

Short reviews translate into strong recommendations and vice versa.

- Giri How long does it take you to review a paper? This varies widely, from a few minutes if there is clearly a major problem with the paper to half a day if the paper is really interesting but there are aspects that I don't understand.Occasionally, there are difficulties with a potentially publishable article that I think I can't properly assess in half a day, in which case I will return the paper to the journal with an explanation and a suggestion for an expert who might be closer to that aspect of the research How to get custom writing assistanceTERM PAPER Buy online nbsp.Occasionally, there are difficulties with a potentially publishable article that I think I can't properly assess in half a day, in which case I will return the paper to the journal with an explanation and a suggestion for an expert who might be closer to that aspect of the research.

- , professor of materials theory at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich It usually takes me a few hours. Most of the time is spent closely reading the paper and taking notes.Once I have the notes, writing the review itself generally takes less than an hour Need to purchase a term paper information sciences plagiarism-free Chicago/Turabian Ph.D. Formatting American.

Once I have the notes, writing the review itself generally takes less than an hour.

- Walsh It can take me quite a long time to write a good review, sometimes a full day of work and sometimes even longer jreference.com/paper/alternative-medicine.php.- Walsh It can take me quite a long time to write a good review, sometimes a full day of work and sometimes even longer.The detailed reading and the sense-making process, in particular, takes a long time.Also, sometimes I notice that something is not quite right but can’t quite put my finger on it until I have properly digested the manuscript.I like to use two sittings, even when I am pretty sure of my conclusions.

Waiting another day always seems to improve the review.- Callaham - M ller I almost always do it in one sitting, anything from 1 to 5 hours depending on the length of the paper.- Chambers In my experience, the submission deadline for reviews usually ranges between 3 working days to up to 3 weeks.As a rule of thumb, I roughly devote 20% of my reviewing time to a first, overall-impression browsing of the paper; 40% to a second reading that includes writing up suggestions and comments; 30% to a third reading that includes checking the compliance of the authors to the journal guidelines and the proper use of subject-typical jargon; and 10% to the last goof-proof browsing of my review.Altogether, it usually takes me more than a day.

- Giri What further advice do you have for researchers who are new to the peer-review process? Many reviewers are not polite enough.It's OK for a paper to say something that you don't agree with. Sometimes I will say in a review something like, “I disagree with the authors about this interpretation, but it is scientifically valid and an appropriate use of journal space for them to make this argument.” If you have any questions during the review process, don't hesitate to contact the editor who asked you to review the paper.Also, if you don't accept a review invitation, give her a few names for suggested reviewers, especially senior Ph.

 In my experience, they are unlikely to write a poor quality review; they might be more likely to accept the invitation, as senior scientists are typically overwhelmed with review requests; and the opportunity to review a manuscript can help support their professional development.- McGlynn The paper reviewing process can help you form your own scientific opinion and develop critical thinking skills.It will also provide you with an overview of the new advances in the field and help you when writing and submitting your own articles.

So although peer reviewing definitely takes some effort, in the end it will be worth it.Also, the journal has invited you to review an article based on your expertise, but there will be many things you don’t know.So if you have not fully understood something in the paper, do not hesitate to ask for clarification.It will help you make the right decision.- Al-Shahrour Remember that a review is not about whether one likes a certain piece of work, but whether the research is valid and tells us something new.

Another common mistake is writing an unfocused review that is lost in the details.You can better highlight the major issues that need to be dealt with by restructuring the review, summarizing the important issues upfront, or adding asterisks.I would really encourage other scientists to take up peer-review opportunities whenever possible.Reviewing is a great learning experience and an exciting thing to do.

One gets to know super fresh research firsthand and gain insight into other authors’ argument structure.

I also think it is our duty as researchers to write good reviews.The soundness of the entire peer-review process depends on the quality of the reviews that we write.- Selenko As a junior researcher, it may feel a little weird or daunting to critique someone's completed work.Just pretend that it's your own research and figure out what experiments you would do and how you would interpret the data.

- Wong Bear in mind that one of the most dangerous traps a reviewer can fall into is failing to recognize and acknowledge their own bias.To me, it is biased to reach a verdict on a paper based on how groundbreaking or novel the results are, for example.Such judgments have no place in the assessment of scientific quality, and they encourage publication bias from journals as well as bad practices from authors to produce attractive results by cherry picking.Also, I wouldn’t advise early-career researchers to sign their reviews, at least not until they either have a permanent position or otherwise feel stable in their careers.Although I believe that all established professors should be required to sign, the fact is that some authors can hold grudges against reviewers.

We like to think of scientists as objective truth-seekers, but we are all too human and academia is intensely political, and a powerful author who receives a critical review from a more junior scientist could be in a position to do great harm to the reviewer's career prospects.- Chambers It is necessary to maintain decorum: One should review the paper justly and entirely on its merit, even if it comes from a competing research group.Finally, there are occasions where you get extremely exciting papers that you might be tempted to share with your colleagues, but you have to resist the urge and maintain strict confidentiality.- Giri At least early on, it is a good idea to be open to review invitations so that you can see what unfinished papers look like and get familiar with the review process.Many journals send the decision letters to the reviewers.

Reading these can give you insights into how the other reviewers viewed the paper, and into how editors evaluate reviews and make decisions about rejection versus acceptance or revise and resubmit.- Walsh At the start of my career, I wasted quite a lot of energy feeling guilty about being behind in my reviewing.New requests and reminders from editors kept piling up at a faster rate than I could complete the reviews and the problem seemed intractable.I solved it by making the decision to review one journal article per week, putting a slot in my calendar for it, and promptly declining subsequent requests after the weekly slot is filled—or offering the next available opening to the editor.And now I am in the happy situation of only experiencing late-review guilt on Friday afternoons, when I still have some time ahead of me to complete the week's review.