Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
instructions_for_referees [2010/03/03 15:16] Christophe Dessimoz |
instructions_for_referees [2013/02/15 18:08] (current) Christophe Dessimoz |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | ====== Instructions for Referees ====== | + | ====== Instructions for Referees ====== |
| Consider the following questions when writing your report: | Consider the following questions when writing your report: | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| * Are all claims backed by evidence? | * Are all claims backed by evidence? | ||
| * Are the evidences relevant/reliable/sufficient? | * Are the evidences relevant/reliable/sufficient? | ||
| - | * Are methods/results appropriate and well-described? | + | * Are methods/results appropriate and well-described? |
| * Is important relevant work omitted? | * Is important relevant work omitted? | ||
| * Does the review suffer from any bias? | * Does the review suffer from any bias? | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| * Right level of detail? | * Right level of detail? | ||
| * Language issues or typos? | * Language issues or typos? | ||
| - | * Courtesy | + | |
| - | * Criticize the work, not the authors | + | The typical report consists of one page of plain text. To help the author and editor, all claims should be backed by evidence. |
| - | * Mention also positive aspects | + | |
| - | * Offer constructive criticism | + | //A note on the format of your peer-review:// the best format to submit your review is just plain text pasted in the relevant fields. Alternatively, you can submit a PDF or DOC document, but be aware that your name might be included in the metadata of that document, thereby compromising your anonymity. |
| - | * Don’t write things that you would not say in person | + | |