Each of your reviews should have two parts: USE THE FORMAT for FILE NAMES DESCRIBED BELOW!!
Firstly, goto the wiki page and download the 2 papers (as pptx files) you are assigned to review. Save each file with yourreviewer code (note that you have a different code specific to each paper) and yourlast name as the first two words in the newly saved file names (I will remove your name from these file titles before I forward your comments back to the authors).
(Part 1) LINE EDITING: open the manuscript file and PUT YOUR REVIEWER ID CODE ON the title slide in the upper left IN RED – NOT YOUR NAME. Then, as you read this file, TYPE DIRECTLY IN RED ORPINK TEXT FONTany spelling or grammar corrections, and any minor text change suggestions, or any specific minor issues they should address etc, that you see need to be made as you go through each slide.
*** Please DO NOT USEthe “track changes” setting or options
When your markings and in-line editings are completed, email this file directly to me — NOT to the authors. (pay attention to the convention for file names above.)
(Part 2) REVIEW: please write a minimum of 2 page (single spaced, 12 point, 1” margins) word processed review of the ms, PUT YOUR REVIEWER ID CODE ON PAGE 1 AT LEFT IN RED – NOT YOUR NAME. Save this file with the file name “YourCode LastName Review.doc” and email to me when done.
Your REVIEW should be in 2 parts:
a. Compose a brief synopsis of the manuscript (minimum ½ page single spaced) completely lacking in any and all editorializing by you. The purpose of this part is for you to help the authors clarify their paper. Your synopsis should start by stating the main research question(s), major issue(s), critical concern(s), etc., whatever, that motivated this study. State IN YOUR WORDS what the authors said they did in their study and what they said their data meant. Use your own writing and DO NOT QUOTE OR PLAGIARIZE PASSAGES FROM THE PAPER. If you must use jargon from the paper, you must define it at first usage. Avoid listing of trivial methodological detail. Summarize their methods as needed. Devote at least a short paragraph to each of the sections in their paper.
b. Compose a brief editorial (minimum of 1.5 pages single spaced, 12 point, 1” margins) on what you thought of their study. Closely examine the notes I presented in class on how to write a Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Literature Cited sections to make sure the authors of your paper followed the format. When you refer to specific places in the ms, cite the slide number, table, figure, paragraph, and other info pertaining to your comment (you can also add a comment coding system and then write this code in the ms in). Your review should also address the greater context of this study, i.e. why is this study important and what does it mean? Also, think about the comments and discussion raised during the symposium and follow up on some of issues – if you agree with them. Points you might also mention include:
– why is the BIG QUESTION of this study interesting?
– what is the significance of the greater context of this study?
– how well do you think they designed their study?
– how clearly do their data actually support their interpretations? You should cite specific examples from the paper in your editorial and not just assert the data did or did not support their conclusions.
– are there are other interpretations the authors did not consider?
– are the future directions thoughtful and complete? What’s next? What data or other studies could be conducted – do you have anything to add?