[Grad-postdoc-assn] How to review an academic journal article - Inside Higher Ed.

[Valerie Sloan]

Good morning and Happy Tuesday,

I hope you make it to Center Green today to check out the NCAR Day of
Science and Discovery.  There's free food at lunch and late afternoon, and
a chance to hear about what is going on at NCAR and to network.

On another note, here is an article on "How to Review an Academic Journal
Article."
<https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/career-advice/2023/09/05/journal-reviewers-should-act-more-mentors-gatekeepers-opinion>
I have pasted the meatiest part below, which has some advice that I know I
need to follow....specifically "do not copy edit the article..."  See the
full article for more.

- Val

How to Review an Academic Journal Article  Inside Higher Education
<https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/career-advice/2023/09/05/journal-reviewers-should-act-more-mentors-gatekeepers-opinion>.
Sept. 5, 2023.
*A Reader Report Template*

While we don’t think it’s the only way to write a report, we’d like to
describe here some ways to give specific feedback in yours. Start with a
one-paragraph summary of the essay’s argument, its contribution or
potential contribution to scholarly discussions on the topic(s) and its
other strengths. That achieves several things. It shows to the author that
you understand what they’re saying, have read the essay carefully and
recognize the contribution the author is making or hoping to make. If, in
the author’s view, that paragraph does not do a good job summarizing the
argument, it should indicate to them that they haven’t been as clear as
they hoped. Such an opening establishes your authority and ethos to both
the author and editor: it shows that you have read the article carefully,
know the field and are generous as well as rigorous.

Alternatively, you might start with your overall recommendation (publish,
decline the article or require revisions) and the main reasons behind it.
Like the thesis in a student essay, the recommendation and main reasons
serve to introduce and organize the details explained in the rest of the
report.

If the article is not a straight acceptance, spend the body of the report
on two or three higher-level recommendations, as well as any smaller
suggestions you have. If you feel the author needs to integrate particular
scholarship, it’s very helpful to name the titles you want them to consult.

Do not copyedit the article—among other problems, it will eat up a
tremendous amount of your time. Rather, use your report to help the author
clarify the stakes of the argument, strengthen the recognition and
treatment of other relevant scholarship on the topic, and improve the
support for the essay’s claims, the article’s structure and the ideas and
concepts they (could) develop or apply.

The only reason to suggest line edits is if you see errors or gaffes you
think a copy editor might not notice. To both author and journal editor, an
excessive focus on minutiae suggests the reviewer has lost sight of the
forest for the trees. Line edits come later in the process—after the
article has been accepted but before it has been published.

If you opened your report with a summary of the essay, you might end the
report with a recap of your recommendations for revision, although that’s
not essential. Authors are likely to read reports several times, so
restatement is probably unnecessary. The same is true for editors. Instead,
you might close the report with your overall recommendation: accept, reject
or revise and resubmit.

If instead you opened your report with your overall recommendation and the
main reasons for it, no conclusion is necessary, although you might end on
an encouraging note: what you learned from the essay, the importance of the
topic and your eagerness to see the essay, a revised version or future work
in print.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/grad-postdoc-assn/attachments/20230905/600ef2ef/attachment-0001.htm>