International Journal of Multidissiplinary Research Configuration
DOI: 10.52984/ijomrc, (IIJIF) Impakfaktor: 1.590, ISSN: 2582-8649
DOI: 10.52984/ijomrc,
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Stap vir stap gids vir die hersiening van 'n manuskrip
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat u, as u 'n uitnodiging tot ewekniebeoordeling ontvang, 'n afskrif van die uittreksel van die referaat moet ontvang om u te help besluit of u die oorsig wil doen. Dit is eties om dadelik op uitnodigings te reageer om vertragings te voorkom. Op hierdie stadium is dit baie belangrik om enige moontlike botsing van belange te verklaar.
Oorsig van die hersieningsverslagformaat
Die hersieningsverslagstruktuur wissel tussen tydskrifte. Oor die algemeen word 'n informele struktuur gevolg, terwyl ander 'n meer formele benadering het.
Informele struktuur
Basies bevat tydskrifte geen spesifieke kriteria vir resensies nie, behalwe om u 'ontleding van meriete' te vra. As dit die geval is, kan u uself vergewis van voorbeelde van ander resensies wat u vir die tydskrif gedoen het en wat die redakteur sal kan lewer, of u kan geleidelik vertrou op u eie styl, sodra u ervaring opdoen.
Formele struktuur
Ander tydskrifte vereis 'n meer formele benadering. Soms kan u selfs gevra word om spesifieke vrae in u resensie via 'n vraelys aan te spreek. U kan selfs die manuskrip met behulp van 'n telkaart op verskillende eienskappe beoordeel. U kan dit meestal nie waarneem voordat u ingeteken het om u hersiening in te dien nie. Dit is dus die moeite werd om na die aanvaarding van die werk die moeite werd te doen, na enige tydskrif-spesifieke riglyne en vereistes te kyk. As u formele riglyne ontvang, word voorgestel dat u die struktuur van u oorsig rig.
In albei gevalle
Alhoewel die verslaggewingsformaat spesifiek deur die tydskrif verskaf word, is dit belangrik om daarop te let dat daar van u verwag word om kommentaar op te stel vir outeurs en moontlik slegs vertroulikes aan redakteurs.
Die eerste deurlees
Dit is belangrik om saam met die uitnodiging tot hersiening te beweeg. Aangesien u die artikel saamgevat het, moet u die doelstellings, sleuteldata en gevolgtrekkings van die manuskrip alreeds verstaan. As u dit nie doen nie, moet u nou daarop let dat u terugvoer moet gee oor hoe u hierdie gedeeltes spesifiek kan verbeter.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
U word voorgestel dat die eerste deurgelees word wat deurlees word. Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat u gehelp sal word as u 'n eerste indruk van die vraestel vorm en 'n idee kry of u uiteindelike aanbeveling is om die vraestel te aanvaar of te verwerp.
Lees eers oorwegings
Hou altyd 'n pen en papier byderhand wanneer u lees.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Hou die volgende vraag in gedagte - dit sal u help om u algemene indruk te vorm:
Identifiseer die hoofvraag wat deur die navorsing aangespreek word? Is dit relevant en interessant?
Hoe oorspronklik is die onderwerp? Voeg dit iets nuuts by die vakgebied in vergelyking met ander gepubliseerde materiaal?
Is die vraestel met die toepaslike formaat geskryf? Vind u die teks duidelik en maklik om te lees?
Vind u die gevolgtrekkings in ooreenstemming met die bewyse en argumente wat aangebied word? Spreek hulle werklik die hoofvraag aan?
Dink jy dat skrywer 'n wesenlike saak het as hy nie eens is met die huidige akademiese konsensus nie? Indien nie, wat is nodig om hul saak geloofwaardig te maak?
Watter gehalte voeg die tabelle of figure by die vraestel? Help dit regtig om te verstaan of is dit oorbodig?
Potensiële groot foute raak te sien
Tydens die lees van die hele vraestel, is dit noodsaaklik om die regte keuse te maak oor wat u eers moet lees, wat tyd kan bespaar deur vroegtydig groot probleme aan te dui.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Redakteurs sê: "Belangrike aanbevelings om foute te herstel, is BAIE welkom."
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Die grootste voorbeelde bevat moontlik die volgende voorbeelde:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Maak 'n gevolgtrekking wat weerspreek word deur die outeur se eie statistiese of kwalitatiewe bewyse
Gekrediteerde metode word gebruik.
Ignoreer 'n proses waarvan bekend is dat dit 'n sterk invloed het op die gebied wat bestudeer word
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
In elk geval bestaan eksperimentele ontwerpkenmerke prominent in die vraestel, en u moet eers seker maak dat die metodologie gesond is - indien nie, is dit waarskynlik 'n groot fout.
U kan ondersoek instel na:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Die steekproefneming in analitiese referate
Die voldoende gebruik van kontrole-eksperimente
Die akkuraatheid van prosesdata
Die reëlmaat van steekproefneming in tydafhanklike studies
Die geldigheid van vrae, en die gebruik van 'n gedetailleerde metodologie en die data-analise wat stelselmatig gedoen word (in kwalitatiewe navorsing)
Daar word opgemerk dat kwalitatiewe navorsing altyd verder strek as die outeur se opinies, met voldoende beskrywende elemente en gepaste aanhalings uit onderhoude of fokusgroepe.
Groot foute in inligting
As u vind dat metodologie minder probleme het, is dit dikwels 'n goeie idee om eers na die datatabelle, figure of beelde te kyk. Wetenskaplike navorsing handel spesifiek oor die inligting wat versamel is. Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat dit waarskynlik is dat die manuskrip verwerp moet word as daar kritieke foute is. Sulke kwessies sluit in:
Onvoldoende data
Onduidelike datatabelle
Sommige teenstrydige gegewens wat nie selfversoenbaar is nie, of nie saamstem met die gevolgtrekkings nie
Die bevestigende gegewens wat regtig min, indien enigiets, by die huidige begrip voeg, tensy sterk argumente vir sulke herhaling aangevoer word
Let op u redenasie en duidelike bewyse (insluitend aanhalings) as 'n groot probleem waargeneem word.
Die eerste lesing afgesluit
Stel net die eerste twee paragrawe van u resensie op na die eerste lees en gebruik van u aantekeninge, insluitend die van die grootste foute wat u gevind het; die eerste moet 'n opsomming wees van die aangespreekte navorsingsvraag en die tweede moet die bydrae van die werk wees. As u 'n voorgeskrewe verslagvorm ontvang het, sal hierdie konsep u steeds help om u gedagtes saam te stel.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Die eerste paragraaf
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
In die begin moet die hoofvraag gestel word en dan deur die navorsing aangespreek word en die doelstellings, benaderings en gevolgtrekkings van die referaat saamgevat word. Dit behoort:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Help die redakteur op gepaste wyse om die navorsing te kontekstualiseer, en u word aangeraai om u oordeel gewig te gee
Lei die skrywer oor die belangrikste boodskappe wat aan die leser oorgedra word, sodat hulle seker kan wees dat hulle bereik wat hulle beplan het om te doen.
Konsentreer deeglik op die suksesvolle aspekte van die referaat om 'n idee te gee of die outeur goed gevaar het of nie.
Die tweede paragraaf
Hieroor moet 'n konseptuele oorsig gegee word rakende die bydrae van die navorsing. Oorweeg dus:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Is die uitgangspunt van die vraestel interessant en belangrik?
Is die gebruikte metodes toepaslik?
Ondersteun die data die gevolgtrekkings?
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Nadat u hierdie twee paragrawe opgestel het, moet u in staat wees om te besluit of hierdie manuskrip ernstig gebrekkig is en verwerp moet word (sien die volgende afdeling). as u dit in beginsel publiseerbaar vind en 'n gedetailleerde, noukeurige deurlees verdien.
Verwerping na die eerste lesing
As u tot die slotsom kom dat 'n artikel ernstige foute het, moet u die hele vraestel deeglik lees. Dit lyk regtig belangrik omdat u 'n paar positiewe aspekte kan vind wat aan die outeur meegedeel kan word. Dit kan hulle selfs help met toekomstige voorleggings.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Soms sal 'n volledige leeswerk u verseker dat enige aanvanklike probleme inderdaad korrek en billik is. Aan die einde het u seker die konteks van die hele vraestel nodig voordat u besluit om dit te verwerp. As u nog steeds van plan is om verwerping aan te beveel, sien die afdeling "Wanneer u verwerping aanbeveel."
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Voordat u met die tweede deurlees begin
As die artikel die eerste keer gelees het en u uiteindelik besluit het dat die artikel in beginsel gepubliseer kan word, is 'n belangrike doel van die tweede, gedetailleerde deurlees om die manuskrip voor te berei vir publikasie. U kan steeds besluit om die vraestel na 'n tweede lees te verwerp.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Hier is dit belangrik om daarop te let dat maatstaf vir aanvaarding is of die manuskrip 'n nuttige bydrae lewer tot die kennisbasis of begrip van die onderwerp. Dit is miskien nie volledig navorsing nie - dit kan selfs 'n tussentydse referaat wees. Hier kan ons immers sê dat navorsing van nature 'n onvolledige, deurlopende projek is. Daar word gewoonlik opgemerk dat die gedetailleerde deurlees vir die matig ervare beoordelaar nie langer as 'n uur duur nie.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Voorbereiding
Vereenvoudig die resensie net om u tyd te bespaar:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
U moet nie slegs daarop vertrou om kommentaar op die manuskrip te plaas nie - maak afsonderlike aantekeninge
U moet probeer om soortgelyke bekommernisse of lof saam te groepeer
As u 'n beoordelingsprogram gekies het om direk in die manuskrip aan te teken, probeer tog om die besorgdheid en lof in aparte aantekeninge te groepeer - dit help later
Daar word voorgestel om die tekslyne op te teken waarop u aantekeninge gebaseer is - dit help u om items weer te vind en help ook diegene wat u resensie lees.
U moet beelde, grafieke en datatabelle in duidelike aansig hou - druk dit af of hou dit op 'n tweede rekenaarmonitor of -venster.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Aangesien u nou klaar is met voorbereidings, is u gereed om 'n uur of wat aandagtig deur die manuskrip te lees.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Die tweede deurleeswerk doen
Daar word voorgestel dat as u die manuskrip vir 'n tweede keer deurlees, u die konstruksie van die argument, die helderheid van die taal en inhoud moet in gedagte hou.
Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat u met betrekking tot die konstruksie van die argument moet identifiseer:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
As u plekke vind waar die betekenis onduidelik of dubbelsinnig is
As u enige feitelike foute vind
As u ongeldige argumente vind
Dit word ook voorgestel om te oorweeg:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Weerspieël die titel van die vraestel die onderwerp van die vraestel behoorlik?
Lyk dit asof die opsomming 'n toeganklike opsomming van die referaat bied?
Weerspieël die sleutelwoorde van abstrak die inhoud akkuraat?
Lyk die lengte van die papier toepaslik?
Lyk die sleutelboodskappe kort, akkuraat en duidelik?
Gaan die taal na
Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat elke voorlegging moontlik nie goed geskryf is nie. U taak is om seker te maak dat die teks se betekenis duidelik is.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Redakteurs sê: "As 'n manuskrip baie probleme met die Engelse taal en redigering het, moet u dit nie probeer regmaak nie. As u dit in 'n slegter toestand vind, is dit belangrik om daarop te let dat dit in u oorsig moet wees en dit moet aan die outeurs wees om die manuskrip verwerk. "
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
As dit moeilik is om die artikel te verstaan, moes u dit reeds verwerp het. As u sien dat die taal swak is, maar dit is vir u maklik om die kernboodskap te verstaan, moet u kyk of u verbeteringe kan voorstel om die probleem op te los:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Is daar sekere spesifieke aspekte wat beter gekommunikeer kan word, soos dele van die bespreking?
Dink u dat die outeurs dit moet oorweeg om weer na dieselfde tydskrif in te dien na taalverbeterings?
Wil u dit weer oorweeg om na die vraestel te kyk sodra hierdie kwessies behandel word?
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Oor grammatika en leestekens
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Die belangrikste rol van u kant is om die navorsingsinhoud te beoordeel. Moenie te veel tyd spandeer om grammatika of spelling te poleer nie. Redakteurs sal toesien dat die teks op 'n hoë standaard is voordat dit gepubliseer word. As u gelukkig is om grammatikale foute raak te sien wat die duidelikheid van betekenis beïnvloed, is dit belangrik om dit uit te lig. Daar word van u verwag om sulke wysigings voor te stel - dit is selde dat 'n manuskrip hersien sonder enige regstellings.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
In 'n studie van 2010 oor verpleegtydskrifte is bevind dat 79% van die aanbevelings deur beoordelaars beïnvloed is deur grammatika en skryfstyl (Shattel, et al., 2010).
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Die tweede deurlees: Afdeling vir afdelingsleiding
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
1. Die inleiding
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
'N Voorgestelde goedgeskrewe inleiding
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Stel die argument perfek uiteen.
Som onlangse navorsing op wat relevant is vir die onderwerp
Beklemtoon groot leemtes wat waargeneem word in die huidige begrip of konflik in die huidige kennis.
Stel basies die oorspronklikheid van die navorsingsdoelstellings deur die behoefte aan ondersoeke in die onderwerp aan te toon
Verskaf 'n duidelike idee van die teikenleserspubliek, waarom die navorsing uitgevoer is en die nuutheid en aktualiteit van die manuskrip.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Oorspronklikheid en aktualiteit:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Daar word opgemerk dat oorspronklikheid en aktualiteit slegs vasgestel kan word aan die hand van onlangse gesaghebbende navorsing. Dit lyk byvoorbeeld regtig onmoontlik om aan te voer dat daar 'n konflik is in die huidige begrip deur na artikels van tien jaar te verwys.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Soms is dit moontlik dat skrywers die saak kan beredeneer deur 'n verskoning te gee dat 'n onderwerp al 'n paar jaar nie ondersoek is nie en dat nuwe navorsing nodig is. Die punt kan slegs geldig lyk as navorsers kan wys op onlangse ontwikkelinge in die insameling van tegnieke of op indirek verwante velde wat daarop dui dat die onderwerp herbesoek moet word. Skrywers kan dit duidelik net doen deur na onlangse literatuur te verwys. Soms, as dit lyk asof ouer navorsing seminal is of waar aspekte van die metodologie daarop staatmaak, blyk dit regtig geskik vir outeurs om ouer artikels aan te haal.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Redakteurs sê: "Verskaf die verslag nuwe inligting; is dit nuut of bevestig dit net die bekende resultate?"
Doelwitte:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Oor die algemeen eindig die inleiding met vermelding van die navorsingsdoelstellings. Dus, op hierdie punt moet u sekerlik 'n goeie indruk daarvan hê. As die eksplisiete doelwitte aan die einde kom as 'n verrassing, moet die inleiding verbeter word.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
2. Materiale en metodes
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Daar word voorgestel dat die akademiese navorsing herhaalbaar, herhaalbaar en robuust is - en dat dit die beste praktyk volg.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Herhaalbare navorsing:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Let daarop dat dit voldoende gebruik maak van-
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Beheer eksperimente
Herhaalde ontledings
Herhaalde eksperimente
Monsterneming
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Dit word basies gebruik om te verseker dat waargenome neigings nie toevallig is nie en dat dieselfde eksperiment deur ander navorsers kan herhaal - en dieselfde uitkoms tot gevolg kan hê. Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat statistiese ontledings nie gesond sal wees as metodes nie herhaalbaar is nie. Die referaat moet aanbeveel word vir verwerping, waar navorsing nie herhaalbaar is nie.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Herhaalbare metodes:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Hier word genoeg besonderhede verskaf sodat ander navorsers dieselfde navorsing kan uitvoer. Die besonderhede van die gebruikte toerusting of steekproefmetodes moet byvoorbeeld beskryf word sodat ander dieselfde stappe kan volg. Waar opgemerk word dat metodes nie genoegsaam gedetailleerd is nie, is dit opreg om te vra dat die afdeling metodes hersien word.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Robuuste navorsing:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Hier word genoeg datapunte verskaf om seker te maak dat die data betroubaar is. As u onvoldoende data vind, is dit dalk gepas om hersiening aan te beveel. Dit word aangeraai om te oorweeg of daar 'n ingeboude vooroordeel is wat nie deur die kontrole-eksperimente vernietig word nie.
Beste praktyk:
U moet altyd die beste praktyk in gedagte hou tydens hierdie kontrole:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Standaardriglyne is streng gevolg (bv. Die CONSORT-verklaring vir die rapportering van ewekansige proewe)
Die gesondheid en veiligheid van al die deelnemers aan die studie is nie ten koste van koste belemmer nie.
Etiese standaarde is deeglik gehandhaaf
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
As die navorsing nie daarin slaag om relevante standaarde vir beste praktyk te bereik nie, sal dit na verwagting verwerping aanbeveel. Wat meer is, u hoef dan nie verder te lees nie.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
3. Resultate en bespreking
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Hierdie afdeling moet altyd 'n samehangende verhaal vertel - Wat het gebeur? Wat is ontdek of bevestig?
Sekere patrone van goeie verslagdoening sal na verwagting deur die outeur gevolg word:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Daar word verwag om te begin deur eenvoudig te beskryf wat die data toon
Daar moet behoorlik verwys word na statistiese ontledings, soos die belangrikheid of die geskiktheid daarvan
As dit een keer beskryf word, moet hulle altyd die neigings evalueer en die belangrikheid van die resultate vir 'n groter begrip verduidelik. Dit kan slegs gedoen word deur na gepubliseerde navorsing te verwys.
Daar word verwag dat die uitkoms 'n kritiese ontleding van die versamelde data is.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Dit word aangeraai om op te let dat die bespreking op enige stadium al die inligting in 'n enkele geheel moet versamel. Skrywers word voorgestel om die gevorderde verhaal te beskryf en te bespreek. As daar leemtes of teenstrydighede in die verhaal gevind word, moet dit bespreek word en maniere gegee word om toekomstige navorsing die bevindinge te bevestig of die navorsing vorentoe te laat beweeg.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
4. Gevolgtrekkings
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Hierdie gedeelte kan aangebied word as deel van die resultate en bespreking, of in 'n aparte afdeling. In die algemeen is hierdie afdeling nie meer as 'n paar paragrawe nie. Die gevolgtrekkings moet altyd besin oor die doelstellings - of dit nou bereik is of nie - en net soos die doelstellings, moet dit nie verbasend wees nie. As opgemerk word dat die gevolgtrekkings nie op bewyse gebaseer is nie, is dit gepas om te vra dat dit herskryf word.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
5. Inligting versamel: beelde, grafieke en datatabelle
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
As u in staat is om na 'n stuk inligting te kyk waaruit u geen verhaal kan sien nie, moet u die verbetering van die aanbieding vra. Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat dit 'n probleem kan wees met titels, etikette, statistiese notasie of beeldkwaliteit.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
As die inligting duidelik is, moet u seker maak dat:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Die resultate is aanneemlik, indien daar fout is met die insameling van data
Die tendense wat u kan nagaan, ondersteun die bespreking en gevolgtrekkings van die referaat
Die data lyk voldoende. Is daar in studies wat oor tyd uitgevoer is voldoende datapunte om die tendense te ondersteun wat deur die outeur beskryf word?
U word aangeraai om na te gaan of beelde verwerk of gemanipuleer is om die verhaal wat hulle vertel, te beklemtoon. Dit kan wel tot 'n mate toepaslik wees, maar slegs as outeurs rapporteer oor hoe die beeld verwerk is (byvoorbeeld deur sekere dele van 'n beeld uit te lig). As u van mening is dat 'n afbeelding sonder verduideliking bewerk of gemanipuleer is, word u aangeraai om dit in 'n vertroulike opmerking aan die redakteur in u verslag uit te lig.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
6. Lys van verwysings
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Dit is nodig om te verwys na akkuraatheid, toereikendheid en balans.
Akkuraatheid
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
As 'n aangehaalde artikel sentraal staan in die argument van die outeur, moet u in daardie geval die akkuraatheid en formaat van die verwysing nagaan - en in gedagte hou dat verskillende vakgebiede aanhalings anders kan gebruik. Andersins is dit die rol van die redakteur om die verwysingsgedeelte deeglik na te gaan vir akkuraatheid en formaat.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Voldoende
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat dit in u oorweging moet kom as die verwysing voldoende is:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Word die belangrike dele van die argument swak ondersteun?
Is daar gepubliseerde studies wat soortgelyke of verskillende tendense weerspieël wat bespreek moet word?
As 'n manuskrip spesifiek die helfte van die tipiese aanhalings in sy veld gebruik, kan dit 'n aanduiding wees dat verwysing moet verbeter word, maar moet nie net deur hoeveelheid gelei word nie.
Gaan die verwysings na wat relevant is, onlangs en is maklik herwinbaar
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Saldo
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Kyk altyd na 'n goed gebalanseerde lys verwysings:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Nuttig vir die leser
Regverdig teenoor die mededingende skrywers
Nie net te veel afhanklik van selfaanhaling nie
Bied die nodige erkenning aan die aanvanklike ontdekkings en verwante werk wat gelei het tot die werk wat beoordeel word
'N Ander belangrike aspek is dat u moet evalueer of die artikel aan die kriteria vir gebalanseerde verwysing voldoen, sonder om na enige verwysing te kyk.
7. Plagiaat
U het nou 'n diep en deeglike begrip van die inhoud van die vraestel - en u kan besorg wees oor plagiaat.
Geïdentifiseerde kommer
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
As u 'n baie soortgelyke referaat vind - of dit al weet - kan dit wees omdat die skrywer dit in hul eie literatuursoektog misgekyk het. Of selfs dit kan moontlik wees omdat dit baie onlangs is of in 'n joernaal gepubliseer word, effens buite hul gewone veld.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Soms voel u dalk dat u die outeur kan adviseer hoe om die nuwe aspekte van hul eie studie te beklemtoon, om dit beter van soortgelyke navorsing te onderskei. As dit die geval is, kan u die skrywer selfs vra om hul doelstellings en resultate te bespreek, of om hul gevolgtrekkings aan te pas in die lig van die soortgelyke artikel. Die navorsingsooreenkomste kan natuurlik so groot wees dat dit die werk onoorspronklik maak en dat u geen ander keuse het as om verwerping aan te beveel nie.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
"Dit lyk regtig nuttig, veral as 'n beoordelaar sekere onlangse soortgelyke publikasies deur dieselfde groepe oor dieselfde onderwerp kan uitwys, of dat die outeurs reeds elders gegewens gepubliseer het." (Redakteur se terugvoer)
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Verdagte kommer
As u vermoed dat plagiaat, insluitend selfplagiaat, maar nie in staat is om te herroep of presies op te spoor wat geplagiaat word nie, moet u die redakteur in kennis stel van u vermoede en vra vir leiding.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Redakteurs het meestal toegang tot sagteware wat kan sorg vir plagiaat.
Redakteurs wil nie elke vraestel polisieer nie, maar wanneer die plagiaat spesiaal tydens portuurbeoordeling ontdek word, kan dit behoorlik aangespreek word voordat dit gepubliseer word. As plagiaat toevallig eers na publikasie ontdek word, is die gevolge eintlik vir sowel outeurs as lesers erger, want 'n terugtrekking kan nodig wees.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
8. Optimalisering van soekenjins (SEO)
U sal na die gedetailleerde deurlees in staat wees om te adviseer of die titel, abstrakte en sleutelwoorde vir soekdoeleindes geskik is. Wat effektiwiteit betref, sal goeie SEO-terme die doelstellings van die navorsing weerspieël.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Gewoonlik sal 'n duidelike titel en die opsomming beslis die ranglys van die soekenjin verbeter, en sal dit beïnvloed of die gebruiker dit vind en dan besluit om na die hoofartikel te gaan. Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat titel altyd vroeg die relevante SEO-terme moet bevat. Dit het 'n groot invloed op die impak van 'n referaat, aangesien dit die papier regtig help om in die soekresultate te verskyn. Die belangstelling van die leser kan verlore gaan as gevolg van die swak samevatting en kan die voordeel van 'n effektiewe titel ongedaan maak. Alhoewel die uittreksel van die referaat in die soekresultate kan voorkom, gaan die potensiële leser miskien nie verder nie.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
U word aangeraai om uself hierdie vrae te stel, alhoewel die opsomming moontlik voldoende gelyk het tydens vroeëre ondersoeke, doen dit:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Voldoen u aan die manuskrip in hierdie konteks?
Lig die belangrike bevindings voldoende uit?
Stel die interessantste gegewens voor?
Redakteurs sê: "Beklemtoon die opsomming die belangrike bevindings van die studie opreg?"
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Hoe om u verslag te struktureer
As 'n formele verslagformaat daar is, moet u dit altyd volg. Verder word 'n reeks vrae gevolg deur die opmerkings. Probeer al die vrae beantwoord. Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat die vrae daar is omdat die redakteur van mening is dat dit belangrik is. As u die informele verslagformaat volg, kan u die verslag in drie afdelings struktureer: samevatting, hoofprobleme, klein kwessies.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Opsomming
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Gee eers positiewe terugvoer. Oor die algemeen sal skrywers meer geneig wees om u resensie te lees as u dit doen. Daar word nie voorgestel dat u dit oordoen as u verwerping sal aanbeveel nie.
Som kortliks op oor die vraestel en die bevindings daarvan.
Die bevindinge van die referaat word aangeraai om in die konteks van die bestaande literatuur en huidige kennis te hou.
Dit is nodig om die belangrikheid van die werk aan te dui en of dit nuut of hoofsaaklik bevestigend is.
Dui die sterk punte van die werk, die kwaliteit en volledigheid daarvan goed aan.
Noem die grootste foute of swak punte en let ook op enige spesiale oorwegings. As u byvoorbeeld agterkom dat teorieë wat voorheen gehou word, oor die hoof gesien word.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Belangrike kwessies
Is daar groot foute? Verduidelik hulle en die erns van die impak daarvan op die papier.
Is soortgelyke werk al gepubliseer sonder dat die outeurs dit erken?
Stel die outeurs die bevindings behoorlik voor wat die huidige denke uitdaag? Is die bewyse sterk genoeg om hul saak te bewys? Is al die relevante werk deur hulle aangehaal wat hul denke sou weerspreek en dit gepas aangespreek het?
As u hersienings benodig, probeer duidelik aandui wat dit is
Is daar belangrike aanbiedingsprobleme? Vind u dat figure en tabelle, taal- en manuskripstruktuur duidelik genoeg is om die werk akkuraat te beoordeel?
Is daar etiese kwessies? As u nie seker is nie, kan dit beter wees om dit in die afdeling vir vertroulike opmerkings te openbaar.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Geringe uitgawes
Is daar plekke waar betekenis dubbelsinnig is? Hoe kan dit reggestel word?
Word die korrekte verwysings aangehaal? Indien nie, watter moet in plaas daarvan / ook aangehaal word? Is aanhalings buitensporig, beperk of bevooroordeeld?
As u enige feitelike, numeriese of eenheidsfoute waarneem? Indien wel, wat is dit?
Kyk of alle tabelle en figure toepaslik, voldoende en korrek benoem is? Indien nie, sê wat nie is nie.
Oor aanbieding en styl
Dit lyk belangrik om daarop te let dat u resensie uiteindelik die skrywer moet help om hul artikel te verbeter. Wees dus beleefd, eerlik en duidelik. U word aangeraai om objektief en opbouend te wees, nie subjektief en vernietigend nie.
U moet ook:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
U moet duidelik skryf sodat u verstaan kan word deur mense wie se eerste taal nie Engels is nie.
U moet ingewikkelde of ongewone woorde vermy, veral woorde wat moedertaalsprekers selfs kan verwar.
U moet u punte nommer en verwys na bladsy- en reëlnommers in die manuskrip wanneer u spesifieke kommentaar lewer
U moet die dele duidelik aandui as u gevra word om kommentaar te lewer op spesifieke dele of aspekte van die manuskrip.
U moet die skrywer se werk hanteer soos u wil hê dat u eie moet behandel word
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Kritiek en vertroulike opmerkings aan redakteurs
Gewoonlik bied tydskrifte beoordelaars die opsie om vertroulike kommentaar aan redakteurs te lewer. Dit is hier waar redakteurs oor die algemeen wil hê dat beoordelaars hul aanbeveling moet noem - sien die volgende afdeling - maar anders is hierdie gebied die beste voorbehou vir die kommunikeer van wanpraktyke soos; verdagte plagiaat, bedrog, werk wat nie toegeskryf word nie, onetiese prosedures, dubbele publikasie, vooroordeel of ander belangebotsings.
Dit gee beoordelaars geen toestemming om die outeur te 'backstab' nie. Selfs skrywers kan nie die terugvoer sien nie en kan nie hul kant van die verhaal gee nie, tensy die redakteur hulle vra. U moet in die gees van regverdigheid skryf, kommentaar aan redakteurs skryf asof skrywers dit ook kan lees.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Die aanbeveling
Resensente word aangeraai om die voorkeure van individuele tydskrifte na te gaan oor waar hulle wil hê dat besluite oor hersiening moet verskyn. U moet veral in gedagte hou dat sommige tydskrifte nie die aanbeveling in kommentaar aan skrywers wil insluit nie, aangesien dit redakteurs later kan veroorsaak - sien Afdeling 11 vir meer advies oor die samewerking met redakteurs.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Oor die algemeen word u gevra om u aanbeveling (bv. Aanvaar, verwerp, hersien en weer in te dien, ens.) Spesifiek uit 'n vaste keuse-lys aan te dui, en dan kan u gevra word om u kommentaar in 'n aparte teksboks in te voer.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Aanvaarding word aanbeveel
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Indien aanvaarding van u kant af aanbeveel word, moet u besonderhede uiteensit waarom en enige gebiede wat verbeter kan word. Moenie net 'n kort, vlugtige opmerking lewer soos 'wonderlik nie, aanvaar'. Kyk na die verbetering van die manuskrip.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Beveel die hersiening aan
U moet die plekke vind waar verbeterings benodig word; 'n aanbeveling vir groot of klein hersiening is tipies. Dit is ook moontlik dat u kies om aan te gee of u ook vir die hersiening na of hersiening inskakel. As u hersiening aanbeveel, noem spesifieke veranderinge wat u voel dat u moet aanbring. Dan word dit maklik vir die skrywer om op elke beurt op elke punt te antwoord.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Soms word die opsie aangebied om verwerping aan te beveel deur sommige vaktydskrifte met die moontlikheid van herindiening - dit is egter die mees toepaslike waar groot, groot hersiening nodig is.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Wat kan beoordelaars doen om te help? "Wees duidelik in hul kommentaar aan die outeur (of redakteur) watter punte absoluut van kritieke belang is as die referaat die geleentheid kry." (Jonathon Halbesleben, redakteur van Tydskrif vir Beroeps- en Organisasiesielkunde)
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Verwerping word aanbeveel
Dit word aangeraai om dit duidelik in u resensie aan te dui as u verwerping of groot hersiening aanbeveel. (en sien die volgende afdeling, 'Wanneer u verwerping aanbeveel').
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Wanneer u verwerping aanbeveel
As u ernstige tekortkominge in die manuskripte vind, moet u die tyd wat u opstel, nie bestee of gedetailleerde advies gee oor die aanbieding nie.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Redaksie sê : "As die beoordelaar verwerping voorstel, maar sy / haar kommentaar nie gedetailleerd of nuttig is nie, help dit die redakteur dan nie om 'n besluit te neem nie."
In u aanbevelings vir die outeur moet u:
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Gee altyd konstruktiewe terugvoer wat beskryf hoe dit die navorsing kan verbeter.
Wees gefokus op die navorsing en nie op die outeur nie. Dit is regtig 'n baie belangrike deel van u werk as beoordelaar.
Vermy om kritiese vertroulike opmerkings aan die redakteur te gee terwyl u die skrywer beleef en bemoedig. Laasgenoemde kan miskien nie verstaan waarom hul manuskrip verwerp is nie. Hulle sal ook nie behoorlike terugvoer kry oor hoe om hul navorsing te verbeter nie, en dit kan 'n beroep veroorsaak.
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>
Onthou om konstruktiewe kritiek te lewer, selfs as u verwerping aanbeveel. Dit help navorsers om hul werk te verbeter en verduidelik selfs aan die redakteur waarom u van mening is dat die manuskrip nie gepubliseer moet word nie.
"As die opmerkings regtig positief lyk, maar die aanbeveling is verwerping ... stel dit die redakteur in 'n moeilike posisie dat hy 'n referaat moet verwerp as die kommentaar dit soos 'n wonderlike artikel laat klink."
</s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s> </s>