Disclaimer: Dieser Thread wurde aus dem alten Forum importiert. Daher werden eventuell nicht alle Formatierungen richtig angezeigt. Der ursprüngliche Thread beginnt im zweiten Post dieses Threads.
- Why do we need the “Recommendation” section if we already have the section “Reviewer positioning”? What is the added value of the “Recommendation” section?
In the homework-pdf it is stated that we should write a “scientific review (content analysis + recommendation) of the article”.
Does that imply that we should not write “reviewer positioning (1); Comments to the author (7); Minor points and critiques (8)”?
Regarding the HOWTO (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7LJZKdwtsyMX1JNcjYtdTVNWkE/view) I hope everyone has read:
It is purpusefully written more general than a step-by-step for the Homework, but as an explanation of how reviews are written in acedemia. Some have an (optional) in the review structure overview. Some reviewing systems would have such a field, others may not.
Since you are writing your review simply in a text document, you have some freedom in creating your review structure (but I wouldn’t be too creative here ). You are correct that it wouldn’t make much sense to have the positoning section and separately another simply repeating “I reccomend to accept” without any reasons.
If you’d do it this way (a bit redundant) it would not be wrong, there’d also not be any point reduction or anything. But you don’t need to have that redundancy. The point of the poisitioning would be to have two very clear data points at the beginning (explanations come later).
You could for instance combine 3 and 4 IF you have the positioning in the beginning.
3 reccommendation and reasoning
I would encourage everyone to have the optional fields of positioning and summary in their homework. Comments and minor points depend on what you have to say about the paper, but usually there is valuable stuff to say.
I don’t really understand the question. The task is a peer review of a scientific paper. Imagine you’d be asked by a journal editor to review the paper as submitted for consideration.
The structure in the HowTo gives you an overview on what’s supposed to be in a scientific peer review. There’s always a justified recommendation, and strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Having seperate sections for this structure is just common sense for an easier read of the review.
Sorry, but I’ve got lost here. For 18 January, our task was to write a research review of R+16 or B+14?