Peer review is a big topic. The following are some key points for your reference: 1. Review process.

Generally speaking, you need to read the article three times, the first time is browsing, that is, to get the first impression of the article; The second time is an in-depth article; The third time is to really consider how this article should be revised. I suggest you fill in the checklist immediately after reading it for the third time, because the content of the article is completely in your own mind at this time.

You can divide your review task into three parts: a) fill in the grading table; B) Give a general opinion on the article; C) specific comments on a section or place of the article. Generally speaking, c) needs to be marked directly in the article. Unless you don't allow it, you should send an article back to the editor with your comments.

You can write a separate confidential opinion to the editor. One of the scores of many reviewers is "editing confidential information", which allows you to fill in your comments directly. Otherwise, you can mark the word "confidential" in the email to the editor.

Don't be embarrassed by sawing off a piece of paper, and certainly don't accept a piece of paper that you think needs to be revised. Readers don't want to read junk articles, and authors will also benefit from your book reviews, thus publishing higher-level articles. There are many reasons why the paper is not good, such as:

The author didn't introduce their algorithm, concept and background clearly, only said the actual results, the contribution of the article and so on.

This article may need several revisions (grammar, spelling, etc.). ).).

This research may fall into low quality or make little contribution.

The study itself is not mature enough to be published.

This article may also be a patchwork submitted to meet the deadline.

It doesn't conform to the contents of journals or conferences at all.

It is too close to the articles published by some authors.

Try to be professional and not hostile when reviewing manuscripts. If you are really angered by the author (for example, an article you know you haven't read at first glance), you can completely show your anger, either directly to the author or to the editor.

Two. Consider what?

The contents listed here may not be comprehensive, but only help you grasp the main body of the article, thus forming helpful suggestions and opinions for the author. The content is not completely necessary. Please make sure that you have read the reviewer's review form, which contains additional review comments.

Does the author cover all the promises he introduced in the introduction of the article? (For example, in the introduction, the author said that our algorithm embodies the advantages of A, B, CB and C. So, have all three points in the guard been proved? If not, it is not completely covered)

Does the author provide enough background knowledge? (For example, many articles will use some mathematical models or formulas. Are these contents clearly explained? )

Isn't the introduction language very clear? Are tables and pictures clear and easy to read? Is it clear after reading these tables and pictures, or do you need to use introductory language provided by other authors? Are there too many pictures? Still not enough? Do you need more pictures? Maybe a new example is needed at this time.

Is the contribution of research clearly defined? Is your contribution great?

Does the method of the article have a clear explanation and a step-by-step explanation? Has the author confirmed everything? (For logging, this is required; Due to space, the meeting is more difficult. )

Are formulas, algorithms, methods, experiments and conclusions correct, intuitive and easy to understand?

Is the research in this paper convincing?

Did the authors express the limitations of their research methods?

Has the author conducted a complete set of analysis (or just selected an analysis that is beneficial to him) and reached a very profound conclusion?

Did the author introduce their future research direction or content?

Does the conclusion of the article matter? Or that's just another narrative of the previous content. Is there anything new in the conclusion? Does it make readers full of excitement and expectation for the research field, content and future?

Does the author use important, current and sufficient references? Are there too many references? Or are many documents irrelevant or unimportant at all? Does the cited article come from a weighted information source? Does the author quote too much? Can you suggest some important quotations not listed by the author?

How is the author's writing? Is there so much nonsense that people can't see clearly? Does it capture the reader's heart well? Is the language used too informal (although sometimes some informal expressions can clearly and effectively explain the theme of the article)? Or, does the author use too much humor in his research articles? Unless informal usage or humor is used in the right place, such behavior needs to be corrected. On the other hand, in some cases, we force the use of formal writing methods.

Whether to modify grammar, spelling or even sentence patterns depends on the reader's own grasp.

Write an audit opinion

Try to make suggestions after reading it. The editor's suggestion should reflect: (1) the preliminary opinion on the final treatment of the manuscript, that is, accept or reject the manuscript; (2) What measures do you think need to be taken before making the above decision? For example, the topic discussed in a paper is a topic of concern to everyone, and the idea is interesting, but it is not scientific enough, so you should make suggestions on how to improve it. You can put forward both positive and negative opinions for the editor's reference when deciding whether to hire or not. Whether to accept or not should also consider the publication rate of the journal. Many times, the reviewer's suggestion is "pending", waiting for the author to give an answer to the question raised. For manuscripts that may be seriously insufficient, special attention should be paid to giving the author the opportunity to reply; Sometimes they will solve the problem quickly, sometimes the problem may not be solved.

3. Write review comments.

Comments should be described in words, not just checked (? )。 The words to the editor (editor) include three parts, and the words should be refined, generally not exceeding 200 or 300 words: (1) Summary, explaining the research topic, basic methods and main findings in three or four sentences, and explaining (reporting) the author's main conclusions. This is very important for sorting out the ideas of reviewers, and also allows editors to better understand the opinions put forward in the latter two parts. (2) Main evaluation and problems. (3) Suggestions, such as: what new ideas are put forward in this paper, what new findings are worth further revision, and so on.

Comments to the author (to the author) should be more specific and have more words. The basic principle is that the problems found by reviewers must be clearly explained to the author; Don't give praise, because if the manuscript can be accepted, the author will be happy enough; Avoid accusations, which are completely unnecessary. On the contrary, the author will think that the commentator looks down on others and has a rude attitude. Every submission is the result of long-term work of peers, which means professional titles, degrees, research funds, achievements, academic status and perhaps bonuses for them.

Comments on the author also include three parts. The abstract is the same as "to the editor". The author can learn from the paper what the reviewers saw, some of which may not have been thought of by the author himself. This helps the author to highlight the key points and how to prepare the defense or revision. (2) Main comments and questions: write one by one, explain clearly and have a basis; Don't just give a "qualitative" statement, for example, don't say "the control group is not suitable" in general, but specifically point out the problems and reasons. For writing problems, reviewers may sometimes feel "angry": it is impolite (even imprecise) to submit an article before it is finished. When encountering writing problems, reviewers can list the main articles in detail and put forward suggestions for revision. If it is too bad, clearly tell the author to ask his superiors (tutors) or experienced colleagues to help correct it. (3) Minor problems, such as redundancy, improper use of symbols, typos, etc. , which is usually considered by commentators to need to be revised. But if you can list by page number and branch, the author will certainly admire your rigorous attitude and sense of responsibility.

Review process of industrial engineering and engineering management journal?

Journal of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management adopts the three-trial system, which mainly includes the first trial of the editorial board, peer external trial, review by the editorial board and final review by the editor-in-chief. All stages are anonymous.

The first trial was conducted by the Editorial Committee of two responsibility, mainly to examine the innovation and contribution value of the manuscript.

For external review, the editorial board or editorial department invites two peer experts to review the manuscript. According to the review, it may continue to be sent to several peer reviews. Reviewers are generally required to reply within 20 days. However, due to the busy work of some reviewers, there may be delays, which require the system to remind them automatically or the editorial department to send an email to remind them.

How does China Writers Network review manuscripts?

Review one by one. As long as the author submits his own document, there will be a special auditor to review it.

What is the submission process of agricultural engineering journals?

1, contribute.

Every newspaper and magazine has its own specific policy and purpose (periodical) and its own readers. Before submitting a manuscript, we must first understand it, find out its publishing cycle, and choose a suitable publishing house or cooperative publishing unit.

Pay attention to control the time. There is a time limit for the publication of the paper, which requires a certain amount of time. How early is the paper submitted? Different publishers have different regulations, which need to be understood in detail in advance.

2. review.

It will be reviewed as soon as possible after submission, and attention should be paid to the format specification. If the manuscript is handwritten, pay attention to writing carefully, neatly and clearly, without typos and accurate punctuation, and be sure to copy it clearly with checkered manuscript paper, indicating the number of words per page. If it is a printed manuscript, you should also pay attention to the fact that the number of words should not be too large or too small, and indicate the number of pages and words in the footer for reference when editing and typesetting.

3. Employment.

Employment only means that the magazine is ready to be published, and it does not guarantee that it will be published on time. It may be delayed due to other factors and needs to be communicated clearly.

4. release.

Magazines wait for articles in magazines.

5. search.

Designated papers can be searched on the paper network, and the magazines included have their own search pages.

What is the audit mechanism of Station A?

The traditional auditing method of Station A is to write the newly submitted videos and article numbers on a piece of paper twice a day, draw a circle on the ground, and then find some monkeys to throw on the electric fan (cattail leaf fan), and whatever is blown into the circle will pass, otherwise it will be returned. Now, because I am tired of writing notes, I have to throw three dice at a time. The first dice is the number of manuscripts, the second dice is the number of rejected manuscripts, and the third dice is the number of the second batch of manuscripts.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ If there are students who really want to know how to judge, look here _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The manuscript review of Station A has always been done manually. In the previous Xilin era, Xilin found a group of volunteers to review the manuscript. After the company's operation, a group of monkeys specially reviewed the manuscript. Occasionally, monkeys from other departments will help if they are too busy ("If you lose, go to review today!" " It is also a common bet in monkey mountain gambling activities, second only to frogs. Because it is entirely based on the subjective judgment of the monkey under trial, there are always cases where the manuscript with the same content has been passed several times or the returned manuscript is intact, and then it is passed by another monkey under trial. The auditing standards range from the sexual orientation of monkeys to the freshness of bananas provided by the company at lunch that day, and are entirely based on individuals. So, yes-in essence, it is manual audit and electric fan (cattail leaf fan) audit (this is the official statement! ) The effect is the same.

How to ask the editorial department when the manuscript will be published?

Now all papers are revised through the paper review system. You can ask the editor in the system or call directly.