Guidelines for Reviewers
Comments for the Author
Identify the major contributions of the paper. What are its major strengths and weaknesses, and its suitability for publication? Please include both general and specific comments bearing on these questions, and emphasize your most significant points.
General comments should address the following:
- Importance and interest to this journal’s readers
- Scientific soundness
- Degree to which conclusions are supported
- Organization and clarity
- Cohesiveness or argument
- Length relative to information content
- Whether material should be moved to an appendix
- Conciseness and writing style
- Appropriateness for Scientia discipulorum
Support your general comments, positive or negative, with specific evidence. Remember that a review lacking substance will generally have less impact than a review that is well-reasoned and rich in content. You may write directly on the manuscript but YOU MUST summarize your remarks in “Comments for the Author(s)”. Comment on any of the following matters that significantly affected your judgment of the paper:
Presentation — Does the paper tell a cohesive story? Is a tightly reasoned argument evident throughout the paper? Where does the paper wander from this argument? Do the title, abstract, key words, introduction, and conclusions accurately and consistently reflect the major point(s) of the paper? Is the writing concise, easy to follow, interesting?
Length — What portions of the paper should be expanded, condensed, combined, and/or deleted? (Please don’t advise an overall shortening by X%. Be specific!)
Methods — Are they appropriate, current, and described clearly enough that the work could be repeated by someone else?
Data presentation — When results and especially trends in results are stated in the text of the paper, can this be easily verified by examining tables and figures? Are any of the results counterintuitive? Are all tables and figures necessary, clearly labeled, well planned, and readily interpretable? Are the conclusions justified by the presented results?
Statistical design and analyses — Are they appropriate and correct? Can the reader readily discern which measurements or observations are independent of which other measurements or observations? Are significance statements justified?
Errors — Point out any errors in technique, fact, calculation, interpretation, or style. (e.g., see the “CBE Style Manual, Fifth Edition”, and the ASTM Standard E380-93, “Standard Practice for Use of the International System of Units” — for an abbreviated version see the ASTM website.)
Citations — Are all (and only) pertinent references cited? Are they provided for all assertions of fact not supported by the data in this paper?
To learn more about the Scientia Discipulorum e-journal at SUNY Plattsburgh, please contact:
Dr. T.B. Mihuc, Editor
Office: Beaumont Hall 442
Phone: (518) 564-3039