Questions for Peer-Reviewing a Research Article for a Professional Scientific or Technical Journal

Given where the article will appear, has the writer addressed the journal’s requirements for

·         Format

·         Content (required parts, issues to be addressed, etc.)

·         Organization

·         Length

·         Mechanical considerations (font, margins, use of graphics,                                                       citation format, etc.)

Does the introduction

·         Announce the subject?

·         Take note of previous relevant work on the subject?

·         State what gaps are present in our understanding of the subject?

·         Introduce her or his attempt to close one (or more) of those gaps?

If there is a materials and methods section, does it

·         describe the experiment itself so that another scientist could reproduce it with a routine knowledge of lab procedure and basic science?

·         Describe the order that should be followed, rather than errors or irrelevant events?

·         Report only details affecting the experiment's outcome?

·         Assume the obvious?

If there is a results section, does it

·         describe your data clearly, and refer readers to each relevant Figure or Table?

·         Start with the obvious and tell the story of what happened?

·         Cover all your most significant findings?

·         Report trends (increasing, decreasing, varying, comparisons with controls) or absence of trends (negative results may be useful, too)?

In the discussion/conclusion, does the writer

·         Discuss each major observation in the Results section?

·         Open each chunk of discussion with a 1-sentence summary of the procedure and result obtained and follow with a conclusion that can be drawn from the result?

·         Use words and phrases like "therefore" and "this result shows that" when conclusions follow directly, without interpretation, from the result?

·          Use words and phrases like "this result suggests that" and "this result supports the conclusion that" when the results are not sufficient in themselves to confirm conclusions?

·         Discuss how your results support, extend, or contradict observations in the published literature?

·         Conclude with speculation on how your study may relate to a more general issue and defend the significance you postulated in your introduction?

Questions suggested by http://faculty.goucher.edu/eng221/types_of_natural_sciences_writin.htm and http://faculty.goucher.edu/eng221/how_to_write_a_scientific_articl.htm