Editing Question

Hello!
You will be asked to conduct a research manuscript review, better known as a peer review. Peer review is the process of evaluating a piece of scholarly work.The peer review process is designed so that researchers meet the accepted standards of their discipline (e.g., sport and exercise psychology) and prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by academics.
The paper itself is a rejected paper, you have to figure out why it was rejected from being published and how you can make it better! (You don’t have to do a “Recommendation” like shown in the layout of the example.
Please look at the ART OF WRITING PDF, PEER REVIEW PROCESS PDF & HOW TO WRITE A MANUSCRIPT PDF when doing the review!!!!
Please USE the SAMPLE ARTICLE REVIEW COMMENTS Document, this document is a REAL PEER REVIEW and it is an option for us to use the same layout to turn it in! You dont have to follow the same layout but I would encourage and add your own spice to it
(USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDELINE, AS AN EXAMPLE, FOLLOW THE LAYOUT)
THE ASSIGNMENT:
“PLEASE REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT | Article to Review W2024” is the document name!!!!!!!!!! EDIT and REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT ONLY! This is what I will turn in
THE PAPER HAS TO BE
4-6 pages , 3 pages is two short. Single spaced
APA format, name page (first page)
Here are tips on how to make this review even more effective! Please use this information
Tips given by my professor
Good reviewers dive deep, please impact the paper and dive deep!
good constructive feedback, unpack more
Be constructive, thank them for the opportunity to review, then summarize how you saw it. Not a formula for it though
Back up why you don’t like something, with facts!
How can you make it better, why is it not so good, how can you fix
What is mediation analysis? Can use Google scholar (Baron et kenny paper 1986)
In the paper you will see, please use this information!
Independent variable: cohesion, ATGT, ATGS, GIT, GIS
Dependent variable: Satisfaction(life scale), Goal Achievement (self-reference, normative, mastery)
Mediator : appraisal: challenge, threat, lost
Relationship exist, works through mediator
Relationship operates through mediator
Idea behind the mediator is to determine the mechanism, how so?
Mediators are important to uncover because they allow what?
Intervention should be based on appraisal, that is what you should target.
In the review you should see if it makes sense.
We as a reviewer have to determine if it’s the right move. That’s what you have to figure out.
Paper was rejected, have to say why it was rejected
Lots of issues in intro, provide enough information
Have they made a persuasive story, if not how can they make it???
Did they describe their participants correctly
Have the authors given enough information to replicate the study in the methods area
Do the authors convince you that they selected the best measures for the triangle, the measures, IV,DV, appraisals
Not convinced of life satisfaction, why though? Have they done a good enough job the selected the best instrumentals, theoretically and statistically
Procedure, how did they collect the data, did they convince you that you can follow their recipe??
Data analysis
HLM, have an understanding of what it is. Hardcore linear modeling, It says look, lets control, whats the control, explain it
Was that the appropriate statistical modeling for the sample that they have “HLM”?
Athletes have to be nested within teams, something said in the paper, terminology
Discussion, can you understand whats going on? Did they test for mediation? The whole purpose of the study was to test if mediation
Level 2 means at the team level, said in the paper, terminology
Level 1 is at the athlete level, said in the paper, terminology
Your discussion is nothing more than a rehash of the results
Is this discussion a rehash, do they authors restate their results without much explanation to what the results mean?
Here are some giveaways I was given by my professor that you can use when making the manuscript and add to what else you may find
Sample Limitations: The paper lacks information about the different sports within the sample. The different sports could definitely have variations in group dynamics factors.
Method Limitations: The use of self reported measures could lead to data that is biased. The study would be improved if researchers used a combination of self-reports / observational methods.
Gender/Economic Factors: The authors should have further explained how factors such as gender and economic rewards could impact group dynamic components such as group cohesion, goal attainment, etc.
Data Availability: Stating that readers need to request data, makes for transparency issues.
The paper aligns with a positivist approach as it focuses on statistical analysis and makes knowledgeable claims based on these statistics. Attempts to make a cause and effect relationship, although very difficult in this short term study.
“Hanging out time” bottom page 9
“Olympic fight” bottom page 5
KEYS FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND
Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. Most funding decisions in science and the academic advancement of scientists are based on peer-reviewed publications. Because the number of scientific articles published each year continues to grow, the quality of the peer-review process and the quality of the editorial board are cited as primary influences on a journal’s reputation, Journal Impact Factor (JIF), and standing in the field. Scientific journals publishing peer-reviewed articles depend heavily on the scientific referees or reviewers who typically volunteer their time and expertise. In most circumstances, at least two reviewers are solicited to evaluate a manuscript; some journals request three or more reviews. This may be required in situations where review by a statistician is needed. In cases of controversy or strong disagreement regarding the merits of the work, an additional review may also be solicited or one of the journal’s editors might give an evaluation. More than three reviewers are sometimes used if reviewers from several fields are needed to obtain a thorough evaluation of a paper. In addition to fairness in judgment and expertise in the field, reviewers have significant responsibilities toward authors, editors, and readers.
Reviewer responsibilities toward authors
•Providing written, unbiased, constructive feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, together with the documented basis for the reviewer’s opinion
•Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rating the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to the journal’s readers
•Avoiding personal comments or criticism
•Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper
Reviewer responsibilities toward editors
•Notifying the editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner and, if able, providing the names of alternative reviewers
•Alerting the editor about any potential personal, financial or perceived conflict of interest and declining to review when a conflict exists (see section 2.3.2)
•Complying with the editor’s written instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the review
• Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work, which may include supplementary material provided to the journal by the author
•Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it; and, if requested, recommending acceptance or rejection using whatever rating scale the editor deems most useful
•Noting any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted to another journal that may be known to the reviewer
•Refraining from direct author contact Sample correspondence related to this topic is available on the CSE website.
Peer-reviewer responsibilities toward readers
• Ensuring that the methods and analysis are adequately detailed to allow the reader to judge the scientific merit of the study design and be able to replicate the study
• Ensuring that the article cites all relevant work by other scientists
Editors, frequently with the assistance of electronic databases of reviewers kept by their journal’s offices, choose reviewers whose expertise most closely matches the manuscript’s topic and invite them to review the paper. The editors also consider the number of manuscripts sent to a reviewer by their journal so as not to overburden any one expert. Editors are encouraged to consider diversity when selecting from a pool of potential reviewers. Some journals encourage authors to suggest preferred reviewers and reviewers they would prefer to be excluded. Ideally, the reviewer selection process and the journal’s internal policies address the issue of potential bias by excluding reviewers from the same department or institution as that of the author(s) and by asking reviewers to disclose any potential conflict of interest. Reviewers may also be asked to decline the review if they have any personal or professional connection to the author(s) that may be perceived as a conflict of interest, they feel unqualified to do the review, or they cannot review in a timely manner. This “bias screening” at the point of reviewer selection may be incorporated into the forms in an online submission system, the email sent to request the review, or posted on the journal site as a policy.
Responsibilities
Constructive critique.
Reviewer comments should acknowledge the positive aspects of the material under review, identify negative aspects constructively, and indicate the improvements needed. Anything less leaves the author with no insight into the deficiencies in the submitted work. A reviewer should explain and support his or her judgment clearly enough that editors and authors can understand the basis of the comments. The reviewer should ensure that an observation or argument that has been previously reported be accompanied by a relevant citation and should immediately alert the editor when he or she becomes aware of duplicate publication. The purpose of peer review is not to demonstrate the reviewer’s proficiency in identifying flaws. Reviewers have the responsibility to identify strengths and provide constructive comments to help the author resolve weaknesses in the work. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author. Although reviews are confidential, all anonymous comments should be courteous and capable of withstanding public scrutiny. Some journals ask reviewers to provide two sets of comments: one for the author and the other for the editor only. The latter can sometimes be more candid and can recommend that the manuscript be accepted or rejected (something that arguably should not be part of comments to the author)
Competence.
Reviewers who realize that their expertise on the subject of the manuscript is limited have a responsibility to make their degree of competence clear to the editor. Reviewers need not be expert in every aspect of a manuscript’s content, but they should accept an assignment only if they have adequate expertise to provide an authoritative assessment. A reviewer without the requisite expertise is at risk of recommending acceptance of a submission with substantial deficiencies or rejection of a meritorious paper. In such cases, the reviewer should decline the review
Impartiality and integrity.
Reviewer comments and conclusions should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the facts, exclusive of personal or professional bias. All comments by reviewers should be based solely on the paper’s scientific merit, originality, and quality of writing as well as on the relevance to the journal’s scope and mission, without regard to race, ethnic origin, sex, religion, or citizenship of the authors. A reviewer should not take scientific, financial, personal, or other advantage of material available through the privileged communication of peer review, and every effort should be made to avoid even the appearance of taking advantage of information obtained through the review process. Potential reviewers who are concerned that they have a substantial conflict of interest should decline the request to review and/or discuss their concerns with the editor.