[IPOL discuss] Handbook for Reviwers: your feedback required! :)

[Nicolas Limare]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 02:37:55PM +0100, Daniel Kondermann wrote:

> But I also think that for our special case, were the reviewers' role for
> the technical part is very new, the current reviewers should find a
> common denominator to define some questions to ask to the paper.

I found the folowing Reviewer Guidelines in the latest issue of the
"European Science Editing" journal. It could be a starting point for
IPOL guidelines. I would need to be adapted, for example by removing
the requirement for originality and the questions about experimental
setup, ethical issues and statistical significance. Additional
check-list points about the software can be derived from the software
guidelines.

8<----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8<----------

Reviewer check-list

The following are typical check-list points that a reviewer might be
asked to respond to. Authors should also consider these points before
finally submitting their paper and ask themselves the same questions.

* Is this an original work that to your knowledge has not been
  published previously?
* Is the subject matter appropriate to the scope of the
  journal? (If not, suggest journals that might be more appropriate.)
* Title. Does the title give a clear and accurate description
  of the subject of the paper?
* Abstract and key words. Have the authors provided a concise
  abstract or summary that provides sufficient information on the
  rationale, the procedures followed and the main outcomes and
  conclusions? Have the authors provided appropriate key words?
* Does the paper make a worthwhile contribution to the state of
  knowledge or does it merely repeat existing information? Does it
  have international relevance?
* Has the author provided an Introduction that describes the
  rationale for the work, indicates familiarity with the ‘state of the
  art’ of the subject, with clear objectives and/or hypotheses which
  are followed up in the sections that follow?
* If the paper reports on an experiment, was the experimental design
  appropriate?
* Methods. Are the methods and materials described adequately
  (ie at a level of detail that would enable an informed researcher
  to repeat the investigation, but without excessive details that an
  informed reader would be expected to know)?
* Do any of the methods involve regulated procedures or other
  ethical issues (eg the use of live animals) that require approval
  by an ethical review committee? If so, is there clear evidence that
  standards have been fully met?
* Is there an adequate description of the methods used for data
  analysis and are the data analysis procedures appropriate for
  the work reported?
* Are the results clearly set out and the key findings described
  accurately?
* Has the author interpreted non-significant findings as though
  they were significant?
* Is the order of presentation consistent with that given in the
  objectives and methods sections?
* Tables and Figures. Are the tables and figures (if
  applicable) clear, with appropriate statistical significances given?
* Are all the tables and figures (graphs etc) provided
  appropriate, and do they have precise headings that describe exactly
  what they are intended to show?
* Is there any evidence of excessive duplication in presenting
  results in tables and figures?
* Are figures provided at a resolution that will allow for
  adequate reproduction in the printed version?
* Discussion. Does the discussion follow a clear and focused
  structure? Does it address the objectives as set out in the
  Introduction and consider the findings in relation to appropriate
  literature? If the work has a public policy relevance, have
  the authors indicated their familiarity with policy objectives.
* Conclusions. Are the conclusions adequately supported by the
  results as given and the intellectual interpretation that the
  authors have applied to them?
* References. Have the authors made appropriate use of published
  literature and presented the references in a format that is
  compatible with the style required by the journal?
* Spelling, grammar and style. Is the paper written in clear English
  that requires only minor editorial corrections, or is there a
  need for more substantial revisions?

8<----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8<----------8<----------

-- 
Nicolas LIMARE - CMLA - ENS Cachan    http://www.cmla.ens-cachan.fr/~limare/
IPOL - image processing on line                          http://www.ipol.im/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://tools.ipol.im/mailman/archive/discuss/attachments/20120306/98e833f9/attachment.pgp>