Review+quidelines

Pirkko Hyvönen Verkkotyöskentelyjakso 1 / OPVIE

Task 1. / Quidelines

 * REVIEW - COMMENTS FROM REFEREES**

Your task is to help the author write a better, more readable, paper. You don't need to be a great scientific writer yourself to do this. You just need to be a good, attentive, reader.

Please review the manuscript as you would want one of your manuscripts reviewed. Provide as many constructive comments and useful recommendations as possible. Provide the reasons for your evaluation of the manuscript. As a reviewer you have the responsibility for providing constructive, well-reasoned appraisal of manuscripts phrased in the spirit of professional courtesy. For each manuscript you should be able to provide a clear and definite answer to the following questions:
 * 1) Has any material in this article been published previously? If so, please supply details to the editor.
 * 2) Is the research of adequate significance (new findings, confirms or contradicts other work) to warrant publication?
 * 3) Is the research scientifically sound? Are there sufficient references to relevant information from the primary literature?


 * The following outline may assist you in your evaluation of a manuscript.**

The Introduction should summarize our current understanding of the problem (before the study reported here), and clearly indicate the purpose of the study. At the end of the Introduction, leading into the Materials and Methods section, the author should 1) clearly state the purpose or goal of the study, and 2) briefly indicate the study's approach and how it addresses the questions or hypotheses posed. Indicate where the author does this, and whether it is done effectively.
 * 1. Introduction**

What sort of related previous research is mentioned? If you feel unclear about the relevance of the research cited in the context the author has chosen, what other sorts of references would provide a better background for the study? Is there additional background information that should be provided here? Identify subject, is the subject of the article clearly identified? Orient research to previous concepts and research. State hypothesis, objectives and/or purpose. Is the purpose clearly stated? Is the objective and/or hypothesis important for the area of research?

The Materials and Methods section should succinctly explain what was done, giving only information necessary to repeat the experiment. Design, is the design appropriate for the purpose of the study? Procedures, is there sufficient detail to enable the reader to duplicate the procedures?
 * 2. Materials and Methods**

This section reports the data/results using a combination of text, figures, and tables, without imposing any interpretation at this stage. Are the results presented in a logical sequence to support the research questions (or hypotheses)?
 * 3. Results**

Are conclusions stated briefly in a logical order?
 * 4. Conclusion**

Interpret data presented in Results in a succinct manner. Are there errors of fact or interpretation? Relate findings to previous research. Is the relationship between the results and previous work relevant? Has the author cited all and only pertinent literature? Reasons for differences in results. **Implications** for practical application and future research.
 * 5. Discussion**

Having read the entire paper, check that the Title describes the study and its major finding. Suggest any necessary changes to the information content of the title here, as well as on the draft. Is the title appropriate and clear?
 * 6. Title**

If the paper includes an Abstract, mark where the author has addressed (1) the purpose of the study, (2) the primary methods used including a brief description of the study design, (3) the key results that address the specific questions asked (including quantitative summaries or comparisons), and (4) the primary interpretations or conclusions drawn. Is anything missing? Is anything included which should not be there? Mark on the draft any places where the language should be more concise. Is it specific and representative of the article? Is the motive for the research indicated?
 * 7. Abstract**

List the three most important IMPROVEMENTS that are needed. Make sure that you have suggested constructive solutions to these problems.
 * 8. Final Analysis**

List the three most important STRENGHTS of this paper which should not be lost in the process of revision.

WRITING STYLE: Describe the writing style of the paper (stuffy, casual, professional, 'folksy', wordy, etc.) and suggest stylistic changes.

ACCEPT: publish as it stands ACCEPT: but in need of further work as indicated REVISE AND RESUBMIT: in need of major changes as indicated REJECT: for reasons indicated in this review
 * In my view this paper should be placed in the following category**:


 * Reviewer’s Comments** (Please provide a paragraph of general comments supporting the recommendation, followed by a list of specific comments. These comments may be in addition to or in lieu of reviewer comments inserted into the text of the article.