Open AccessJournal Reviews and Revisions: Advice from an Early Career Panel Discussion
Author(s) -
Paul Chan,
Dossick Carrie,
Hacker Miriam,
Timo Hartmann,
Javernick-Will Amy,
Ashwin Mahalingam,
Vedran Vedran
Publication year - 2020
Language(s) - English
DOI - 10.25219/epoj.2020.00101
Subject(s) - cornerstone , advice (programming) , quality (philosophy) , peer review , medical education , psychology , section (typography) , best practice , public relations , work (physics) , political science , engineering ethics , medicine , computer science , engineering , history , operating system , mechanical engineering , philosophy , archaeology , epistemology , law , programming language
Peer review is a cornerstone of high-quality research. While attending PhD programmes, we mostly interact with advisors, however the academic quality of our work is ultimately judged by a broader range of academic peers. For early career researchers, transitioning into independent thought-leaders requires increasing exposure with our community of peers, and inevitably engaging with review practices - both as authors andreviewers. Whilst many PhD programmes around the world offer training on paper and grant reviews, journal paper reviews remain somewhat vague to many researchers at all levels who haven’t had extensive exposure to advisors, editors, and peers who share their understanding of expectations and best practices. This article provides a discussion of the review and revision process for journal articles, including a check-list for each section.