<h1>How To Write A Really Good Research Paper?</h1>

How To Write A Really Good Research Paper? First, I verify the authors’ publication records in PubMed to get a feel for their experience in the area. I additionally contemplate whether or not the article contains a good Introduction and description of the state-of-the-art, as that not directly reveals whether the authors have an excellent knowledge of the sphere. Second, I pay attention to the outcomes and whether they have been compared with different similar printed studies. Third, I contemplate whether the results or the proposed methodology have some potential broader applicability or relevance, as a result of in my opinion that is necessary. Finally, I consider whether the methodology used is acceptable. I attempt to act as a neutral, curious reader who desires to grasp each element. If there are issues I battle with, I will recommend that the authors revise parts of their paper to make it extra strong or broadly accessible. I wish to give them sincere suggestions of the identical type that I hope to obtain when I submit a paper. My critiques are inclined to take the type of a abstract of the arguments within the paper, followed by a abstract of my reactions after which a series of the particular points that I wanted to lift. Mostly, I am attempting to determine the authors’ claims within the paper that I did not find convincing and information them to ways that these factors can be strengthened . Minor feedback may embody flagging the mislabeling of a figure within the textual content or a misspelling that adjustments the which means of a standard term. Overall, I try to make comments that would make the paper stronger. My tone is very formal, scientific, and in third particular person. This just isn't all the time simple, especially if I discover what I assume is a critical flaw within the manuscript. However, I know that being on the receiving finish of a evaluation is kind of annoying, and a critique of one thing that is close to at least one’s coronary heart can easily be perceived as unjust. I attempt to write my reviews in a tone and type that I might put my name to, although reviews in my field are often double-blind and not signed. A evaluate is primarily for the good thing about the editor, to help them attain a call about whether to publish or not, however I try to make my reviews helpful for the authors as well. If I find the paper especially interesting , I tend to offer a extra detailed evaluation as a result of I need to encourage the authors to develop the paper . My tone is considered one of trying to be constructive and useful despite the fact that, of course, the authors won't agree with that characterization. My evaluate begins with a paragraph summarizing the paper. Then I actually have bullet points for main feedback and for minor comments. I additionally take note of the schemes and figures; if they're well designed and arranged, then in most cases the whole paper has additionally been fastidiously thought out. Most journals don't have special directions, so I just read the paper, usually starting with the Abstract, looking at the figures, and then studying the paper in a linear trend. I read the digital model with an open word processing file, keeping a list of “main gadgets” and “minor items” and making notes as I go. If there's a main flaw or concern, I attempt to be honest and back it up with proof. I'm aiming to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the standard of the paper that might be of use to each the editor and the authors. I suppose lots of reviewers strategy a paper with the philosophy that they're there to establish flaws. But I only point out flaws if they matter, and I will ensure the review is constructive. I try to be constructive by suggesting methods to improve the problematic features, if that's possible, and likewise try to hit a relaxed and friendly but in addition neutral and goal tone. I always write my critiques as if I am speaking to the scientists in particular person. I attempt exhausting to keep away from impolite or disparaging remarks. The review course of is brutal enough scientifically without reviewers making it worse. There are a few features that I ensure to handle, although I cover a lot more floor as properly. First, I consider how the question being addressed fits into the current status of our information. Second, I ponder how nicely the work that was conducted actually addresses the central question posed in the paper. Unless it’s for a journal I know well, the first thing I do is verify what format the journal prefers the evaluate to be in. If the authors have presented a new tool or software program, I will take a look at it in detail. First, I read a printed model to get an general impression. The main elements I contemplate are the novelty of the article and its influence on the sphere. I always ask myself what makes this paper related and what new advance or contribution the paper represents. Then I observe a routine that may assist me evaluate this.