Writing the manuscript Several models for the initial draft exist. The authors conclude that IL-9 is an excellent marker for diagnosing prostate cancer and monitoring for disease recurrence. The third sentence needs revision. Summary The authors describe a prospective study of the diagnostic accuracy of IL-9 as a biomarker for prostate cancer.
The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: The authors are listed in decreasing order of their contribution and the senior author, or mentor, should be the last but this convention has never been codified Or, maybe the authors will see that their descriptions are unclear and need revision to improve clarity.
Being constructive means that one looks for both the strengths and weaknesses of each manuscript. At stake is not only your reputation but also that of the journal you represent.
Example 2 2 presents 2 sets of hypothetical comments—one unspecific and unhelpful to the authors and the other specific and helpful. Comment Set 1 Discussion. Show Some Respect Reviewers should show some respect by at least reading over each manuscript. Although serum PSA was measured as part of the standard of care in the clinic, the PSA results were unknown to the researchers to avoid any bias in the diagnosis.
In this game, the pins are still there, but now a black sheet is in front of the pins. I recommend them to anyone who is serious about writing a manuscript or has even toyed with the idea of writing novels.
In order to protect the integrity of the peer review, both editors and reviewers need to have the courage to do the right thing for the sake of justice and science, even if it involves the possibility of reprisal. Which order would make your life easier.
Remember, you are the one who must re-review the manuscript should a revision be submitted, so this exactness will benefit you if and when you are called upon to evaluate the revised manuscript.
Comment Set 4 Page 3, Introduction. Figures and tables should be simple, expand text information rather than repeat it, be consistent with reported data and summarise them Thus, the use of only 12 months of follow-up represents a major limitation of the current study and does not allow a full evaluation of the long-term diagnostic value of IL-9 as a tumor marker for detecting recurrence.
Tips for successful revision of a manuscript Most papers are accepted after some degree of revision. What you communicate to the authors and what you communicate to the editor will not be exactly the same, because these 2 stakeholders need different information and different types of feedback.
They should avoid excessive wordiness and other commonly made errors such as The numbers of participants presented in Table 3 do not match the overall numbers of patients enrolled in the study as shown on this page.
Studies of interleukins for other types of cancer have found these biomarkers to have substantially less value for predicting low-level early recurrence between 12 and 24 months of follow-up, the time period over which recurrence is usually observed.
The strengths and the limitations of the research and what the study adds to current knowledge should then be addressed American Psychologist, 69 6Do not simply state that experimental details are missing.
Be Specific Avoid writing vague comments. I do not understand why the authors studied this biomarker. Target journal It can be worth thinking about this issue before starting to write as a proper choice of the journal can affect not only the writing style but also the ease of publication and the prompt dissemination of research.
First, a summary paragraph indicates to the authors and the editor that you have read the paper and have taken the time to summarize it. Once you have completed your evaluation of the entire manuscript and identified its strengths and weaknesses, the time arrives to put pen to paper or keystrokes to computer screen and actually create the peer review report that will go back to the editor and authors.
First, a summary paragraph indicates to the authors and the editor that you have read the paper and have taken the time to summarize it. American Psychologist, 68 9. If you have shared responsibility for the review of this manuscript with a colleague, you should provide that person’s name and affiliation to the editors Guide participants in how to write review reports in such a way that they answer the needs of both the Editor and the author Brainard, D.H.
How to write an effective manuscript. Reviewing Manuscripts. Editors usually write to request the aid of external experts in reviewing manuscripts for forthcoming books prior to official publication.
Book proposal reviews tend to precede book manuscript reviews and are almost always two separate processes, so if you have been contacted for a manuscript review, a book proposal. Therefore, it is important as you write the manuscript review to understand that you are really writing 2 reports, although there may be overlap in what you convey to the editor and the author.
Therefore, your review must be effective in giving each party the information they need. Brainard interviewed about "the dress" (Spring ): Refinery29, ABC, CBS (name misspecified as David Maynard), New York Times, The Guardian.
Brainard receives a Stein Innovation Award from Research to Prevent Blindness. How to Write An Effective Manuscript Review BY DAVID H.
BRAINARD The editorial process serves two important functions. The ﬁrst is to maintain high scientiﬁc standards for published papers. The second is to help authors improve their work.
An effective review helps the editor decide whether the paper should be published and provides feedback to authors.
Much like a road trip, your goal of each chapter is to get from point A to point B. Write up and plug a first sentence and a last sentence into your Chapter Writing GPS, then watch as it guides you throughout each section of your manuscript.How to write an effective manuscript review brainard