Reviewing the Research of Others RIMC Research Capacity

Reviewing the Research of Others RIMC Research Capacity Enhancement Workshops Series : “Achieving Research Impact”

Reviewing the research of others • The Peer-Reviewing Process (refereeing) – Normally 1 -3 reviewers – “Double-blind, ” the reviewers and the authors do not know each other – The editor mediates between them – A good review; • • Summarises the manuscript to show that the reviewer understood it Identifies its strengths and weaknesses Avoid self promotion Advises on how to improve it – How to strengthen weaknesses – Which additional references to read – Publication: • • Accept unconditionally Conditionally accept subject to modification Reject but encourage revision and resubmission Reject outright

What editors want to see (i) Proper Structure • • • Abstract Introduction Literature Review Theoretical Framework Research Design Methodology Results Analysis Discussion Conclusions References What to look for Capable of standing in for the paper Brief, contextual, problem oriented Comprehensive but succinct Simple, clear, justifiable from the literature Relevant to theory, practical Straightforward and honest description Concise, complete Make full and logical use of the results Interpretative and justifiable Relate discussion to the problem/objective Complete

• Persuasion What editors want to see (ii) – many journals reject up to 90% of submissions • Logical flow of ideas and arguments • Something new, interesting, counter-intuitive • A contribution. . • In the context of prior work • References; – Relevant – Adequate, not excessive – To the journal you’re submitting to – Recently published (4 years)

Plagiarism • Taking someone else’s work as your own • Not providing appropriate citation information to indicate authorship correctly. • Plagiarism is a serious offence • An author who plagiarises is likely to find that; – his/her article is automatically rejected – irrespective of the quality of the work done – he/she is blacklisted from that journal (and other journals) in the future • Plagiarism is very easy to detect From Davison, R. M. (2011) Tutorial on Publishing ICT 4 D Research, Presented at the IFIP WG 9. 4 Conference, Kathmandu, Nepal, 22 -25 May.

Rejecting manuscripts • Inappropriate objectives – Unclear, drifting; too many; too ambitious • Incomplete/overdone literature review • Conclusions do not arise from analysis • No data, no research • Too much speculation • Confusing correlation with causation • Unsuitable length; should be 5 -8 k words • No story • Uninteresting , boring • Trivial, irrelevant, no problem, done before • Poorly constructed, weakly argued • Ethical concerns

Typical review form Use this as checklist for manuscripts

1. Understand your role – 10 tips for reviewing When a young researcher becomes known as an excellent reviewer, he or she may be selected as consulting editor, then associate editor, and then perhaps the primary editor of a journal. Referees, and often editors, are not usually paid. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. To evaluate and advise, not critique Do it on time Read manuscripts carefully Find something positive to say Don’t be mean Be brief Don’t nitpick Develop your reviewing style; – Summary, strengths, weaknesses, advise. 9. Make a recommendation 10. Review unto others as you would have them review unto you.

Issues with peer • The open peer review • Post-publication reviews reviewing • Timescales • Bias, unaccountable, incomplete • Not designed to detect fraud • Not full access to the data • Susceptible to control by established elites