Reviewing scientific papers.

McKenzie, S

doi:10.1136/adc.72.6.539

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We excluded from further analysis all items presenting poor factor loadings (λi ≥ 0.5; λ 2 ij ≥ 0.25; Maroco, 2010) or high crossloadings (MI > 9). In the second step we performed an Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA;McIver & Carmines, 1981), in principal components (PCA), and varimax orthogonal rotation to the data, in order to corroborate the best-fitting model found in CFA. In the third step we used the STATS Tool Package (Gaskin, 2012) to examine the Convergent (AVEi ≥ 0.5; Fornell & Larcker, 1981) and Discriminant Validities (MSV < AVE; ASV < AVE; Fornell & Larcker, 1981) of the factors.…”

Section: Plan Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale--Portuguese Version

Cordeiro¹,

Paixão²,

Lens³

et al. 2016

PsycTESTS Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A critical review of a journal article is a comprehensive evaluation of the article content, formal structure and methodological approach. Success in this task, requires students to develop analytic and reflexive skills as prerequisites to identify the article´s key research question(s), relevant findings and main conclusions reached. Critical skills are also an important aspect of a student's academic and future professional lives, yet this has been a largely overlooked component of academic training. This paper aims to provide undergraduate students with a simple and straightforward set of guidelines that allow to develop a more complete understanding of research articles. The content, structure and common mistakes of research papers are addressed, along with the most relevant standards for review. With this structure, we hope students will be able to more thoroughly analyze and critically discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a research article.

show abstract

Section: Plan Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale--Portuguese Version

Cordeiro¹,

Paixão²,

Lens³

et al. 2016

PsycTESTS Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If the answers to both questions are yes—accept the invitation to review. When in doubt about any potential conflict, a discussion should take place with the editor who can assist with decision making on the specific issues generated by the manuscript under consideration 2,3 …”

Section: Agreeing To Be a Reviewermentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviewing manuscripts: tips and responsibilities

Heddle

Ness

2009

Transfusion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One significant gap in the peer review process, is how we teach the referee to referee 2 . Football referees have to undergo professional training and even to sit exams before they are qualified.…”

Section: Teaching the Referee To Refereementioning

confidence: 99%

“…One significant gap in the peer review process, is how we teach the referee to referee. 2 Football referees have to undergo professional training and even to sit exams before they are qualified. The referee of a scientific paper however, is generally given little or no guidance, and is expected to learn on the job.…”

Section: Teaching the Referee To Refereementioning

confidence: 99%

Who teaches the referee?

Isaacs

2004

J Paediatrics Child Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reviewing scientific papers.

Cited by 11 publications

References 5 publications

Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale--Portuguese Version

Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale--Portuguese Version

Reviewing manuscripts: tips and responsibilities

Who teaches the referee?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About