{"id":298,"date":"2014-07-29T12:35:24","date_gmt":"2014-07-29T10:35:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ist.blogs.inra.fr\/afs\/?p=298"},"modified":"2014-11-29T13:52:51","modified_gmt":"2014-11-29T12:52:51","slug":"check-list-for-associated-editors-and-reviewers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/2014\/07\/29\/check-list-for-associated-editors-and-reviewers\/","title":{"rendered":"Checklist for Associate Editors and Reviewers"},"content":{"rendered":"<script type='text\/javascript' src='https:\/\/d1bxh8uas1mnw7.cloudfront.net\/assets\/embed.js'><\/script><p><em>As scientists we know that reviewing papers is an important task in our scientific duty. It is an honour to be invited to review a paper for any scientific journal and the journal reputation depends on the quality of this peer review process.<\/em><br \/>\n<em>In order to help you in the review process, we prepared a short list of 13 key points that should be checked for each paper and \/or documented while writing the review<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center\">This checklist applies for both AE &amp; reviewers<\/p>\n<p><strong>1<\/strong>&#8211; Check if your expertise matches well the content of the manuscript<br \/>\n<strong>2<\/strong>&#8211; Make sure that there is no conflict of interest between you and the authors of the manuscript<br \/>\n<strong>3<\/strong>&#8211; Check that you will be able to perform the review in time<br \/>\n<strong>4<\/strong>&#8211; Plagiarism &amp; scientific misconduct: if any doubt, inform and discuss with the Editor<br \/>\n&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br \/>\n<strong>5<\/strong>&#8211; <strong>Title<\/strong>: needs to reflect the paper content and should be attractive for the readers; do not hesitate to suggest changes;<br \/>\n<strong>6<\/strong>&#8211; <strong>Abstract<\/strong>: check if the authors statements make logical sense and are substantiated by the results; check also the key message whether it is easy to understand and conveys the main message from the manuscript;<br \/>\n<strong>7<\/strong>&#8211; <strong>Originality<\/strong>: this is the first question to be asked: the authors need to clearly highlight where and how their work is original in comparison to earlier papers; such an originality is a prerequisite to publication;<br \/>\n<strong>8<\/strong>&#8211; <strong>Introduction<\/strong>: see #7 and make sure that the context is clearly presented for introducing the manuscript contribution including hypothesis to be tested or explicit research question;<br \/>\n<strong>9<\/strong>&#8211;<strong>Method<\/strong>: the easiest question to ask is: \u201cis it possible to reproduce the experiment?\u201d If no, additional information is probably needed. You need also to check if the methods are appropriate to test the hypothesis made above;<br \/>\n<strong>10<\/strong>&#8211;<strong>Results &amp; figures<\/strong>: check if the analysis is appropriate (including statistics) and presented in a logical sequence. Check if the references to figures and tables are correctly numbered and if the captions of the figures are self informative;<br \/>\n<strong>11<\/strong>&#8211; <strong>Conclusion\/discussion<\/strong>: check if these sections are supported by the results and if the contribution has moved beyond the current state of art presented in the introduction;<br \/>\n<strong>12<\/strong>&#8211; Check <strong>the list of references<\/strong>: are they all cited in the text: are they up to date? And internationally based? If possible suggest to remove citation to grey literature that can not be found easily<br \/>\n<strong>13<\/strong>&#8211; <strong>Language<\/strong>: if any doubt on the writing quality, clarity, grammatical errors, don\u2019t correct the English, just inform the editor who will suggest a language editing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>As scientists we know that reviewing papers is an important task in our scientific duty. It is an honour to be invited to review a paper for any scientific journal and the journal reputation depends on the quality of this peer review process. In order to help you in the review process, we prepared a [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":36,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-298","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-posts-edited-by-editors","category-for-referees","cat-6-id","cat-42-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/298","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/36"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=298"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/298\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=298"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=298"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=298"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}