Ayurveda Research Papers CCA Student papers The selected papers published on our website have been written by students of the California College of Ayurveda as a part of their required work toward graduation.
Search Share A good peer review requires disciplinary expertise, a keen and critical eye, and a diplomatic and constructive approach. Writing a good review requires expertise in the field, an intimate knowledge of research methods, a critical mind, the ability to give fair and constructive feedback, and sensitivity to the feelings of authors on the receiving end.
As a range of institutions and organizations around the world celebrate the essential role of peer review in upholding the quality of published research this week, Science Careers shares collected insights and advice about how to review papers from researchers across the spectrum. The responses have been edited for clarity and brevity.
Buy Landmark Papers in Cell Biology: Selected Research Articles Celebrating Forty Years of The American Society for Cell Biology on arteensevilla.com FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders. Delegation strategies for the NCLEX, Prioritization for the NCLEX, Infection Control for the NCLEX, FREE resources for the NCLEX, FREE NCLEX Quizzes for the NCLEX, FREE NCLEX exams for the NCLEX, Failed the NCLEX - Help is here. Peer Commentary. How Identical Twins Grow Up To Be Different Caitlin M. Jones Rochester Institute of Technology. In the paper, "Heredity Versus Environment: Twin, Adoption, and Family Studies," Haimowitz reviewed relevant research regarding the debate over how personalities are shaped.
What do you consider when deciding whether to accept an invitation to review a paper? I consider four factors: I see it as a tit-for-tat duty: Since I am an active researcher and I submit papers, hoping for really helpful, constructive comments, it just makes sense that I do the same for others.
The only other factor I pay attention to is the scientific integrity of the journal. I would not want to review for a journal that does not offer an unbiased review process. For every manuscript of my own that I submit to a journal, I review at least a few papers, so I give back to the system plenty.
Finally, I am more inclined to review for journals with double-blind reviewing practices and journals that are run by academic societies, because those are both things that I want to support and encourage.
I will turn down requests if the paper is too far removed from my own research areas, since I may not be able to provide an informed review. Having said that, I tend to define my expertise fairly broadly for reviewing purposes. I also consider the journal. I am more willing to review for journals that I read or publish in.
Before I became an editor, I used to be fairly eclectic in the journals I reviewed for, but now I tend to be more discerning, since my editing duties take up much of my reviewing time. Some journals have structured review criteria; others just ask for general and specific comments.
Knowing this in advance helps save time later. I almost never print out papers for review; I prefer to work with the electronic version. I always read the paper sequentially, from start to finish, making comments on the PDF as I go along. I look for specific indicators of research quality, asking myself questions such as: Are the background literature and study rationale clearly articulated?
Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous work? Are the methods robust and well controlled? Are the reported analyses appropriate?
I usually pay close attention to the use—and misuse—of frequentist statistics. Is the presentation of results clear and accessible? To what extent does the Discussion place the findings in a wider context and achieve a balance between interpretation and useful speculation versus tedious waffling?
First, is it well written? That usually becomes apparent by the Methods section. Then, throughout, if what I am reading is only partly comprehensible, I do not spend a lot of energy trying to make sense of it, but in my review I will relay the ambiguities to the author.
I should also have a good idea of the hypothesis and context within the first few pages, and it matters whether the hypothesis makes sense or is interesting. Then I read the Methods section very carefully.
Mostly I am concerned with credibility: Could this methodology have answered their question? Then I look at how convincing the results are and how careful the description is. Sloppiness anywhere makes me worry. The parts of the Discussion I focus on most are context and whether the authors make claims that overreach the data.
This is done all the time, to varying degrees. I want statements of fact, not opinion or speculation, backed up by data. There are a few aspects that I make sure to address, though I cover a lot more ground as well.Mar 23, · Of almost 3, articles published in biomedical research in , 1,, or 40%, came from the United States.
As the line graph below demonstrates (that’s the . Online custom essays, term papers, research papers, reports, reviews and homework assignments. Professional custom writing service offers high quality and absolutely plagiarism free academic papers. Affordable prices and written from scratch by highly qualified academic writers.
This article includes everything you need for writing an interesting essay: Easy technology topics with links to videos, articles, and research to start your paper.
Scientific research articles provide a method for scientists to communicate with other scientists about the results of their research. A standard format is used for these articles, in which the author presents the research in an orderly, logical manner.
This doesn't necessarily reflect the order in. Writing research papers has become inevitable while in college.
This is because, in each module that you study, you are expected to do a research to prompt your thinking and reasoning. The ultimate guide to writing perfect research papers, essays, dissertations or even a thesis. Structure your work effectively to impress your readers.