With the amount of poor quality research available on the internet at the moment, it is vital to ensure that any sources that you use are from a peer-reviewed publication. I would not want to review for a journal that does not offer an unbiased review process. Listen to and learn from them! What would these people look like? It has been shown time and again that data end up being used effectively and valued in ways that original experts never envisioned or even thought valid. Repeating the analysis five times — the control analysis the authors performed — is not an adequate way to address this concern. It should be clear that this is far from optimal for testing such an unorthodox hypothesis. If I find the paper especially interesting and even if I am going to recommend rejection , I tend to give a more detailed review because I want to encourage the authors to develop the paper or, maybe, to do a new paper along the lines suggested in the review.
I believe the importance of this paper stems from the applicability of the approach to the several thousand of rare human disease genes that Next-Gen sequencing will uncover in the next few years and the challenge we will have in figuring out the function of these genes and their resulting defects. My hunch is that many human genes expressed in yeast will have some comparably exploitable phenotype, and time will tell. For example, some journals prefer to publish only groundbreaking research and may overlook even good papers that don't, in the opinion of the editors, drive the field forward. If I've never heard of the authors, and particularly if they're from a less developed nation, then I'm also more likely to accept the invitation. This is further corroborated by the fact that when using stimulus labels that are chosen completely at random i.
And it does update the prior. An adversarial collaboration only really makes sense to me for paradigms were we can be confident that mundane or trivial factors have been excluded. If there are serious mistakes or missing parts, then I do not recommend publication. When deciding whether or not to accept, take into consideration three things: 1 Do you have time to do the review by the deadline? I think that you have to emphasize the strengths of HmV in comparison to other alternatives in my opinion, one strength is that it is a good lightweight alternative to embed heat maps in a web report. The title and abstract are appropriate for the content of the text.
Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous work? Open-ended form A list of open-ended questions can encourage students to provide more detailed feedback. Moreover, assigning students to the groups will allow the instructor to ensure that the groups are heterogeneous in terms of, for example, student ability, gender, race, and academic major. To start, I will outline the problem being discussed for the sake of readers. Did the patient undergo a baseline prior to dopamine agonist treatment echocardiographic evaluation? A key point is that the state of one particular set of twins is a different parameter from the frequency of occurrence of identical twins in the population. The immigrants engage in lowly paid jobs, which contribute to the economy. Browsing the comments on articles in PeerJ, PubPeer and PubMed Commons will help you see how other scientists approach reviewing a paper. As a consequence these organisms are also more dependent on the protein folding machinery.
As a more minor point with regard to the data set and what the authors want it to do, there were some inconsistencies as to how the study was framed. I will make some more concrete comments below. Take an active role in observing the progress of each group and offering guidance when appropriate. Then I read the Methods section very carefully. A logical answer simply requires that the prior is constructed logically. If this is not possible, and by means of its extraordinary discrimination between current and noise, this automated patch-clamp equipment will only be helpful for rapid I NaL-modifying drug screening. Out of the 20 pairs, 13 started with 1 min of initial silence.
Therefore, incorrectly claims the posterior probability is sensitive to the choice between a Jeffreys or Laplace uninformative prior. To this end, the I NaL effects of ranolazine a well known I NaL inhibitor and veratridine an I NaL activator were described. This could dispel criticism that an asymmetrical expectation bias that has been shown to exist in similar experiments is not driving a bias leading to inappropriate conclusions. The excellent decoding almost certainly has nothing to do with expectation or imagery effects and it is irrelevant whether participants could guess the temporal design of the experiment. Likewise there is some inconsistency in the naming conventions used. Criteria grid A criteria grid is useful to assist students in recognizing and constructing assertion-plus-evidence arguments. I also consider whether the article contains a good Introduction and description of the state of the art, as that indirectly shows whether the authors have a good knowledge of the field.
The manuscript is certainly well written and attractive, but I have some major concerns on the data analyses that prevent me to endorse its acceptance at the present stage. Depending on how much time I have, I sometimes also end with a section of minor comments. In doing so, I also hope to help non-scientists understand a bit more about the process. I usually differentiate between major and minor criticisms and word them as directly and concisely as possible. Are you familiar with all of them? I always write my reviews as though I am talking to the scientists in person. After the first in-paper citation you need only write the page number in the parenthetical until you cite another author.
The parents-to-be ask Efron to tell them the probability that the twins are identical. My tone is very formal, scientific, and in third person. Therefore, both recordings would have been exposed to only one signal period but at different times at 1 min and 2 min for pair 1 and 15, respectively. I also consider the journal. I would expect the attributes to print on their own line and the data in the attribute to also be on its own separate line. Is this a consistent finding? While several journals—such as Nature—have taken tentative steps to facilitate post-peer review by allowing comments on their own papers, a more useful approach is being undertaken by , which allows any paper to be commented upon anonymously, and , which allows any PubMed-indexed paper to be commented upon non-anonymously by PubMed-indexed authors.