Analysis Of The Movie The Night - 1047 Words

Six months. I can’t believe it’s been six months, and my stomach still turns when I see his car in the parking deck. Six months since I’m the one who chose to break it off, and yet I’m still this fucked up over it somehow. How can that be? He’s the one with the broken heart. He’s the one who fought so hard to keep me when I was determined to go, because I’m the kind of girl who makes up her mind and doesn’t change it. I’m the kind of girl who craves change, who leaves and never comes back, no matter how strong the temptation. Then again, I’m also the kind of girl who lets people get way too deep into her heart. I’ve been playing the beginning of this passage over and over in my head as I drove to this cafe, like an internal monologue. I even acted it out, like I was in one of the Netflix shows I’ve been binge-watching and losing sleep over. It’s probably getting unhealthy at this point. Funny; the first time I’ve written about the break up at all, and yet here I sit, in the same exact place, at the same exact table I ran to right after it happened. I came here to vent and cry about it to a friend who had been through the exact same thing, and was one of the biggest reasons I had the courage to leave in the first place. So it’s even funnier that I’m sitting opposite the seat I sat in that day. She at the bench, being strong and supportive, me in the rickety wooden chair, trying my best (and failing miserably) to keep the tears out of my eyes. Fairly recently, I assumed thatShow MoreRelatedAnalysis Of The Movie The Night 996 Words   |  4 Pagesneedles of death! she exclaims. I don t understand you, Bridges. Josh laughs,You saved my life, but then almost gave me a heart attack. Brianna smiles up at him as he laughs. Adoration shines in her eyes, sparkling like stars on the darkest of nights. Blood curdling needles of death? Josh chuckles, So dramatic! Have you ever considered writing? Shut up Ramsay. Brianna smirks, I would be a wonderful author. Josh walks closer to the bed, his heart racing. He sits down in the same spotRead MoreAnalysis Of The Movie The Night 957 Words   |  4 Pagesthem. The figures were grim in appearance, green, ribs protruding from the side, hollow eyes, and open mouths that were letting out a hollow scream. Our class, 30 in number, shuffled in and took our seats. Once in our seats we were shown a movie. The movie was about the Holocaust, and some of the people who were fortunate enough to survive it. The film covered significant points that were the crescendos of this time in History. The survivors spoke on their experiences, how they survived, and theRead MoreAnalysis Of The Movie The Night 867 Words   |  4 PagesRichards briefcase it showed the audience that Paul was showing his anger due to the fact he had feeling for Anne. 9. There were a couple unique sound effects in the play. The sound effects was the pounding on the door, the noise of the door across the hall closing, the door knob when it was being unscrewed from the door, a baby crying, and the jiggle of a dogs collar. The sound cues were executed at the right moments in the play. For example, when the lady from 4a came into 4b’s apartment to talkRead MoreAnalysis Of The Movie The Night 858 Words   |  4 Pagesreally missed the great adventure, which not only added gas to her fire but it made her go on a rage. This rage lasted for weeks and weeks and she ended up destroying her room just to show her parents how bad she wanted to go to the carnival. The night that she destroyed her room a little leprechaun about the same size of her foot with a face that looked cute, according to Lucy which made it easier for the leprechaun to convince her into going with him to the carnival. The leprechaun ran into herRead MoreAnalysis Of The Movie The Night 1065 Words   |  5 PagesAt Once Again Antiques, Zach hesitated under the store’s overhang and stomped the snow from his boots. In the display window, a vintage jukebox played Deck the Halls, and next to it, a color wheel revolved in front of an aluminum Christmas tree. He removed his Stetson and tapped it against his pant leg, releasing a dusting of snow from the dark felt brim. Whatever was supposed to happen would be today, December 24th. For Gran’s sake, he’d ask an eye-catching, yet complete stranger to accompany himRead MoreAnalysis Of The Movie The Night 898 Words   |  4 Pagesâ€Å"Here he is,† Mindy said happily when Zack arrived for his detention. Zack looked around. The only people there were Miss Devasquez and Mindy. He knew about the â€Å"special detention† that Miss Hartick had put together, and he had expected that he would have to go through the same thing. It didn’t look that way though. He was glad about that at least. He even let himself expect that this might be a regular detention. He asked, â€Å"It’s just us?† â€Å"It’s just us,† Miss Devasquez said. Playfully, she saidRead MoreAnalysis Of The Movie The Night 925 Words   |  4 Pagesher friends enjoyed the use of the house owned by her best friend’s parents. They had the run of Megan’s family beach home in Playa Del Rey for the holiday week. Megan’s parents were on location in Canada for two months. Her dad and mom were on a movie shoot filming a creature feature. As a result, the friends felt they were on one long slumber party, similar to the ones they enjoyed as teenagers. Only at this juncture of their life, wine and men liven up the week-long gathering. The young womenRead MoreAnalysis Of The Movie The Night 978 Words   |  4 PagesBy the following Tuesday night she was ready to resume taking after having several nights of poor sleep. The doorbell rang about 1A.M., I got up in time to see Kevin handing an almost nude Susan a Sunday. All she had on was her pink panties, hmm..she had pajama s on when she went to bed. At first I thought she might be awake, but her blank expression led me to believe she was in ambient trance. How did Kevin know to bring a Sunday or did he just chance it? Why was Susan naked? Did she call KevinRead MoreAnalysis Of The Movie The Night 1181 Words   |  5 Pagespassenger side of her father’s transport looking at her as if he were about to laugh, but she had at once said to him, â€Å"Did you set the wheels in motion?† sounding much like one of those mid-twentieth century spies in one of New America’s old archived movie records Phillip had recently viewed. â€Å"Everything’s going according to plan so far,† he simply stated back with a grin. A few miles away, once they neared Inez’s place, Cassidy parked on Bethwin Road not far from where she had previously vandalizedRead MoreAnalysis Of The Movie The Night 1673 Words   |  7 Pagesvisiting her friend Melinda who was staying with her father at his place in Elmira, NY. But, after having arrived a day early and not wanting to be a burden. Pamela decided to make a stop at the Ramapo Valley resort just outside of Monticello for the night. Melinda, who had also been a former working girl, had left Miami six years earlier when she had chosen to turn her life around by getting clean. At the time, a local pimp who only went by the name of â€Å"Rangel† had tried to kill her for stealing

Paper Evaluation Free Essays

string(37) " prose is usually highly compressed\." How to Read a Scientific Paper BIOC/MCB 568 — Fall 2010 John W. Little and Roy Parker–University of Arizona Back to 568 home page Translation into Belorussian The main purpose of a scientific paper is to report new results, usually experimental, and to relate these results to previous knowledge in the field. Papers are one of the most important ways that we communicate with one another. We will write a custom essay sample on Paper Evaluation or any similar topic only for you Order Now In understanding how to read a paper, we need to start at the beginning with a few preliminaries. We then address the main questions that will enable you to understand and evaluate the paper. . How are papers organized? 2. How do I prepare to read a paper, particularly in an area not so familiar to me? 3. What difficulties can I expect? 4. How do I understand and evaluate  the contents of the paper? 1. Organization of a paper In most scientific journals, scientific papers follow a standard format. They are divided into several sections, and each section serves a specific purpose in the paper. We first describe the standard format, then some variations on that format. A paper begins with a short  Summary  or  Abstract. Generally, it gives a brief background to the topic; describes concisely the major findings of the paper; and relates these findings to the field of study. As will be seen, this logical order is also that of the paper as a whole. The next section of the paper is the  Introduction. In many journals this section is not given a title. As its name implies, this section presents the background knowledge necessary for the reader to understand why the findings of the paper are an advance on the knowledge in the field. Typically, the Introduction describes first the accepted state of knowledge in a specialized field; then it focuses more specifically on a particular aspect, usually describing a finding or set of findings that led directly to the work described in the paper. If the authors are testing a hypothesis, the source of that hypothesis is spelled out, findings are given with which it is consistent, and one or more predictions are given. In many papers, one or several major conclusions of the paper are presented at the end of this section, so that the reader knows the major answers to the questions just posed. Papers more descriptive or comparative in nature may begin with an introduction to an area which interests the authors, or the need for a broader database. The next section of most papers is the  Materials and Methods. In some journals this section is the last one. Its purpose is to describe the materials used in the experiments and the methods by which the experiments were carried out. In principle, this description should be detailed enough to allow other researchers to replicate the work. In practice, these descriptions are often highly compressed, and they often refer back to previous papers by the authors. The third section is usually  Results. This section describes the experiments and the reasons they were done. Generally, the logic of the Results section follows directly from that of the Introduction. That is, the Introduction poses the questions addressed in the early part of Results. Beyond this point, the organization of Results differs from one paper to another. In some papers, the results are presented without extensive discussion, which is reserved for the following section. This is appropriate when the data in the early parts do not need to be interpreted extensively to understand why the later experiments were done. In other papers, results are given, and then they are interpreted, perhaps taken together with other findings not in the paper, so as to give the logical basis for later experiments. The fourth section is the  Discussion. This section serves several purposes. First, the data in the paper are interpreted; that is, they are analyzed to show what the authors believe the data show. Any limitations to the interpretations should be acknowledged, and fact should clearly be separated from speculation. Second, the findings of the paper are related to other findings in the field. This serves to show how the findings contribute to knowledge, or correct the errors of previous work. As stated, some of these logical arguments are often found in the Results when it is necessary to clarify why later experiments were carried out. Although you might argue that in this case the discussion material should be presented in the Introduction, more often you cannot grasp its significance until the first part of Results is given. Finally, papers usually have a short  Acknowledgements  section, in which various contributions of other workers are recognized, followed by a  Reference  list giving references to papers and other works cited in the text. Papers also contain several  Figures  and  Tables. These contain data described in the paper. The figures and tables also have legends, whose purpose is to give details of the particular experiment or experiments shown there. Typically, if a procedure is used only once in a paper, these details are described in Materials and Methods, and the Figure or Table legend refers back to that description. If a procedure is used repeatedly, however, a general description is given in Materials and Methods, and the details for a particular experiment are given in the Table or Figure legend. Variations on the organization of a paper In most scientific journals, the above format is followed. Occasionally, the Results and Discussion are combined, in cases in which the data need extensive discussion to allow the reader to follow the train of logic developed in the course of the research. As stated, in some journals, Materials and Methods follows the Discussion. In certain older papers, the Summary was given at the end of the paper. The formats for two widely-read journals,  Science  and  Nature, differ markedly from the above outline. These journals reach a wide audience, and many authors wish to publish in them; accordingly, the space limitations on the papers are severe, and the prose is usually highly compressed. You read "Paper Evaluation" in category "Papers" In both journals, there are no discrete sections, except for a short abstract and a reference list. In  Science, the abstract is self-contained; in  Nature, the abstract also serves as a brief introduction to the paper. Experimental details are usually given either in endnotes (for  Science) or Figure and Table legends and a short Methods section (in  Nature). Authors often try to circumvent length limitations by putting as much material as possible in these places. In addition, an increasingly common practice is to put a substantial fraction of the less-important material, and much of the methodology, into Supplemental Data that can be accessed online. Many other journals also have length limitations, which similarly lead to a need for conciseness. For example, the  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences  (PNAS) has a six-page limit;  Cell  severely edits many papers to shorten them, and has a short word limit in the abstract; and so on. In response to the pressure to edit and make the paper concise, many authors choose to condense or, more typically, omit the logical connections that would make the flow of the paper easy. In addition, much of the background that would make the paper accessible to a wider audience is condensed or omitted, so that the less-informed reader has to consult a review article or previous papers to make sense of what the issues are and why they are important. Finally, again, authors often circumvent page limitations by putting crucial details into the Figure and Table legends, especially when (as in  PNAS) these are set in smaller type. Fortunately, the recent widespread practice of putting less-critical material into online supplemental material has lessened the pressure to compress content so drastically, but it is still a problem for older papers. Back to outline 2. Reading a scientific paper Although it is tempting to read the paper straight through as you would do with most text, it is more efficient to organize the way you read. Generally, you first read the Abstract in order to understand the major points of the work. The extent of background assumed by different authors, and allowed by the journal, also varies as just discussed. One extremely useful habit in reading a paper is to read the Title and the Abstract and, before going on, review in your mind what you know about the topic. This serves several purposes. First, it clarifies whether you in fact know enough background to appreciate the paper. If not, you might choose to read the background in a review or textbook, as appropriate. Second, it refreshes your memory about the topic. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it helps ou as the reader integrate the new information into your previous knowledge about the topic. That is, it is used as a part of the self-education process that any professional must continue throughout his/her career. If you are very familiar with the field, the Introduction can be skimmed or even skipped. As stated above, the logical flow of most papers goes straight from the Introduction to Results; accordingly, the pape r should be read in that way as well, skipping Materials and Methods and referring back to this section as needed to clarify what was actually done. A reader familiar with the field who is interested in a particular point given in the Abstract often skips directly to the relevant section of the Results, and from there to the Discussion for interpretation of the findings. This is only easy to do if the paper is organized properly. Codewords Many papers contain shorthand phrases that we might term ‘codewords’, since they have connotations that are generally not explicit. In many papers, not all the experimental data are shown, but referred to by â€Å"(data not shown)†. This is often for reasons of space; the practice is accepted when the authors have documented their competence to do the experiments properly (usually in previous papers). Two other codewords are â€Å"unpublished data† and â€Å"preliminary data†. The former can either mean that the data are not of publishable quality or that the work is part of a larger story that will one day be published. The latter means different things to different people, but one connotation is that the experiment was done only once. Back to outline 3. Difficulties in reading a paper Several difficulties confront the reader, particularly one who is not familiar with the field. As discussed above, it may be necessary to bring yourself up to speed before beginning a paper, no matter how well written it is. Be aware, however, that although some problems may lie in the reader, many are the fault of the writer. One major problem is that many papers are poorly written. Some scientists are poor writers. Many others do not enjoy writing, and do not take the time or effort to ensure that the prose is clear and logical. Also, the author is typically so familiar with the material that it is difficult to step back and see it from the point of view of a reader not familiar with the topic and for whom the paper is just another of a large stack of papers that need to be read. Bad writing has several consequences for the reader. First, the logical connections are often left out. Instead of saying why an experiment was done, or what ideas were being tested, the experiment is simply described. Second, papers are often cluttered with a great deal of jargon. Third, the authors often do not provide a clear road-map through the paper; side issues and fine points are given equal air time with the main logical thread, and the reader loses this thread. In better writing, these side issues are relegated to Figure legends, Materials and Methods, or online Supplemental Material, or else clearly identified as side issues, so as not to distract the reader. Another major difficulty arises when the reader seeks to understand just what the experiment was. All too often, authors refer back to previous papers; these refer in turn to previous papers in a long chain. Often that chain ends in a paper that describes several methods, and it is unclear which was used. Or the chain ends in a journal with severe space limitations, and the description is so compressed as to be unclear. More often, the descriptions are simply not well-written, so that it is ambiguous what was done. Other difficulties arise when the authors are uncritical about their experiments; if they firmly believe a particular model, they may not be open-minded about other possibilities. These may not be tested experimentally, and may even go unmentioned in the Discussion. Still another, related problem is that many authors do not clearly distinguish between fact and speculation, especially in the Discussion. This makes it difficult for the reader to know how well-established are the â€Å"facts† under discussion. One final problem arises from the sociology of science. Many authors are ambitious and wish to publish in trendy journals. As a consequence, they overstate the importance of their findings, or put a speculation into the title in a way that makes it sound like a well-established finding. Another example of this approach is the â€Å"Assertive Sentence Title†, which presents a major conclusion of the paper as a declarative sentence (such as â€Å"LexA is a repressor of the  recA  and  lexA  genes†). This trend is becoming prevalent; look at recent issues of  Cell  for examples. It’s not so bad when the assertive sentence is well-documented (as it was in the example given), but all too often the assertive sentence is nothing more than a speculation, and the hasty reader may well conclude that the issue is settled when it isn’t. These last factors represent the public relations side of a competitive field. This behavior is understandable, if not praiseworthy. But when the authors mislead the reader as to what is firmly established and what is speculation, it is hard, especially for the novice, to know what is settled and what is not. A careful evaluation is necessary, as we now discuss. Back to outline 4. Evaluating a paper A thorough understanding and evaluation of a paper involves answering several questions: a. What  questions  does the paper address? b. What are the main  conclusions  of the paper? . What  evidence  supports those conclusions? d. Do the data actually  support  the conclusions? e. What is the  quality  of the evidence? f. Why are the conclusions  important? a. What questions does the paper address? Before addressing this question, we need to be aware that research in biochemistry and molecular biology can be of several different types: |Type of research |Question ask ed: | |Descriptive |What is there? What do we see? | |Comparative |How does it compare to other organisms? Are our findings | | |general? | |Analytical |How does it work? What is the mechanism? | Descriptive  research often takes place in the early stages of our understanding of a system. We can’t formulate hypotheses about how a system works, or what its interconnections are, until we know what is there. Typical descriptive approaches in molecular biology are DNA sequencing and DNA microarray approaches. In biochemistry, one could regard x-ray crystallography as a descriptive endeavor. Comparative  research often takes place when we are asking how general a finding is. Is it specific to my particular organism, or is it broadly applicable? A typical comparative approach would be comparing the sequence of a gene from one organism with that from the other organisms in which that gene is found. One example of this is the observation that the actin genes from humans and budding yeast are 89% identical and 96% similar. Analytical  research generally takes place when we know enough to begin formulating hypotheses about how a system works, about how the parts are interconnected, and what the causal connections are. A typical analytical approach would be to devise two (or more) alternative hypotheses about how a system operates. These hypotheses would all be consistent with current knowledge about the system. Ideally, the approach would devise a set of experiments todistinguish among these hypotheses. A classic example is the Meselson-Stahl experiment. Of course, many papers are a combination of these approaches. For instance, researchers might sequence a gene from their model organism; compare its sequence to homologous genes from other organisms; use this comparison to devise a hypothesis for the function of the gene product; and test this hypothesis by making a site-directed change in the gene and asking how that affects the phenotype of the organism and/or the biochemical function of the gene product. Being aware that not all papers have the same approach can orient you towards recognizing the major questions that a paper addresses. What are these questions? In a well-written paper, as described above, the Introduction generally goes from the general to the specific, eventually framing a question or set of questions. This is a good starting place. In addition, the results of experiments usually raise additional questions, which the authors may attempt to answer. These questions usually become evident only in the Results section. Back to Evaluating a paper b. What are the main conclusions of the paper? This question can often be answered in a preliminary way by studying the abstract of the paper. Here the authors highlight what they think are the key points. This is not enough, because abstracts often have severe space constraints, but it can serve as a starting point. Still, you need to read the paper with this question in mind. Back to Evaluating a paper c. What evidence supports those conclusions? Generally, you can get a pretty good idea about this from the Results section. The description of the findings points to the relevant tables and figures. This is easiest when there is one primary experiment to support a point. However, it is often the case that several different experiments or approaches combine to support a particular conclusion. For example, the first experiment might have several possible interpretations, and the later ones are designed to distinguish among these. In the ideal case, the Discussion begins with a section of the form â€Å"Three lines of evidence provide support for the conclusion that†¦ First, †¦ Second,†¦ etc. † However, difficulties can arise when the paper is poorly written (see above). The authors often do not present a concise summary of this type, leaving you to make it yourself. A skeptic might argue that in such cases the logical structure of the argument is weak and is omitted on purpose! In any case, you need to be sure that you understand the relationship between the data and the conclusions. Back to Evaluating a paper d. Do the data actually support the conclusions? One major advantage of doing this is that it helps you to evaluate whether the conclusion is sound. If we assume for the moment that the data are believable (see next section), it still might be the case that the data do not actually support the conclusion the authors wish to reach. There are at least two different ways this can happen: i. The logical connection between the data and the interpretation is not sound ii. There might be other interpretations that might be consistent with the data. One important aspect to look for is whether the authors take multiple approaches to answering a question. Do they have multiple lines of evidence, from different directions, supporting their conclusions? If there is only one line of evidence, it is more likely that it could be interpreted in a different way; multiple approaches make the argument more persuasive. Another thing to look for is implicit or hidden assumptions used by the authors in interpreting their data. This can be hard to do, unless you understand the field thoroughly. Back to Evaluating a paper e. What is the quality of that evidence? This is the hardest question to answer, for novices and experts alike. At the same time, it is one of the most important skills to learn as a young scientist. It involves a major reorientation from being a relatively passive consumer of information and ideas to an active producer and critical evaluator of them. This is not easy and takes years to master. Beginning scientists often wonder, â€Å"Who am I to question these authorities? After all the paper was published in a top journal, so the authors must have a high standing, and the work must have received a critical review by experts. † Unfortunately, that’s not always the case. In any case, developing your ability to evaluate evidence is one of the hardest and most important aspects of learning to be a critical scientist and reader. How can you evaluate the evidence? First, you need to understand thoroughly the methods used in the experiments. Often these are described poorly or not at all (see  above). The details are often missing, but more importantly the authors usually assume that the reader has a general knowledge of common methods in the field (such as immunoblotting, cloning, genetic methods, or DNase I footprinting). If you lack this knowledge, as discussed  above  you have to make the extra effort to inform yourself about the basic methodology before you can evaluate the data. Sometimes you have to trace back the details of the methods if they are important. The increasing availability of journals on the Web has made this easier by obviating the need to find a hard-copy issue,  e. . in the library. A  comprehensive listing of journals  relevant to this course, developed by the Science Library, allows access to most of the listed volumes from any computer at the University; a  second list  at the Arizona Health Sciences Library includes some other journals, again from University computers. Second,  you need to know the  limitations  of the methodology. E very method has limitations, and if the experiments are not done correctly they can’t be interpreted. For instance, an immunoblot is not a very quantitative method. Moreover, in a certain range of protein the signal increases (that is, the signal is at least roughly â€Å"linear†), but above a certain amount of protein the signal no longer increases. Therefore, to use this method correctly one needs a standard curve that shows that the experimental lanes are in a linear range. Often, the authors will not show this standard curve, but they should state that such curves were done. If you don’t see such an assertion, it could of course result from bad writing, but it might also not have been done. If it wasn’t done, a dark band might mean â€Å"there is this much protein or an indefinite amount more†. Third, importantly, you need to distinguish between what the data show and what the authors  say  they show. The latter is really an interpretation on the authors’ part, though it is generally not stated to be an interpretation. Papers usually state something like â€Å"the data in Fig. x show that †¦ â€Å". This is the authors’ interpretation of the data. Do you interpret it the same way? You need to look carefully at the data to ensure that they really do show what the authors say they do. You can only do this effectively if you understand the methods and their limitations. Fourth, it is often helpful to look at the original journal, or its electronic counterpart, instead of a photocopy. Particularly for half-tone figures such as photos of gels or autoradiograms, the contrast is distorted, usually increased, by photocopying, so that the data are misrepresented. Fifth, you should ask if the proper controls are present. Controls tell us that nature is behaving the way we expect it to under the conditions of the experiment (seehere  for more details). If the controls are missing, it is harder to be confident that the results really show what is happening in the experiment. You should try to develop the habit of asking â€Å"where are the controls? † and looking for them. Back to Evaluating a paper f. Why are the conclusions important? Do the conclusions make a significant advance in our knowledge? Do they lead to new insights, or even new research directions? Again, answering these questions requires that you understand the field relatively well. Back to Evaluating a paper Back to outline Back to 568 home page [pic] BIOC/MCB 568 — University of Arizona http://www. biochem. arizona. edu/classes/bioc568/bioc568. htm Last modified August 18, 2010 All contents copyright  © 2010. All rights reserved. How to review a scientific paper? |Contents | |  [hide] | |1  Why me? | |2  Am I a suitable reviewer? | |3  How does the review process work? | |4  How do I start? | |5  What to look for? | |6  How to put it in words? | |7  What to recommend? | |8  How to approach a revision? | |9  I’ve done all this work†¦ what do I get out of it? | |10  Further reading | [edit]Why me? You may be surprised that you may be asked as a peer-reviewer for an authorative journal when you yourself are still a PhD-student and with a limited number of published articles. This does not make you an inappropriate reviewer. You may have been ‘found’ in several ways: 1. When submitting a paper, you will often be asked to fill out contact details and area’s of expertise and/or keywords. Journal editors can screen the journal database for potential reviewers with research expertise matching that of the paper. 2. You could have been requested as a reviewer by the submitting authors 3. You could have been suggested as a reviewer by another reviewer (when declining an invitation to review a paper, one is usually asked to suggest an alternative reviewer) or an editor may know you personally. 4. You could have been found based on previous articles you’ve published that were referenced in the submitted manuscript, or simply found on pubmed. [edit]Am I a suitable reviewer? If you seriously question your ability to review the manuscript, you should decline the review invitation. This may be because you are not familiar with the subject, because you are biased towards the submitted work (e. g. ecause of personal relations with the authors, or because the paper is highly competitive with your own work), or just because you feel too inexperienced. However, in the latter case, you may consider accepting the review and asking a more experienced colleague to assist you with the review. Also, it is an excellent way to learn how to peer-review an article by first assistin g colleague in their reviews. Please always keep confidentiality in mind. Contact the editor if you have any questions. [edit]How does the review process work? 1. The editor and ultimately editorial board decide on the fate of the manuscript. . After a manuscript is assigned to an editor, it is read by the editor and he or she decides if the paper is sent out for peer-review. Occasionally, a triage review is commissioned, where an external reviewer is asked for an opinion if the paper should be sent out for full review. 3. Reviewers are invited and receive an abstract of the manuscript. Usually, 2 or more reviewers are sought. 4. After acceptance of the invitation for review, reviewers receive the full manuscript. If a reviewer then discovers that he or she is not suitable after all, the invitation for review can still be declined. 5. The reviewers write their reviews. Usually, this consists of a) filling out a form with scores (for novelty, technical excellence, appropriateness of manuscript preparation, etcetera), b) comments to the authors, and c) comments to the editor. Typically, an advice regarding overall priority for publication and/or acceptance is asked for, which is blinded to the authors. 6. After the editor has received the reviewer comments, he may decide to commission another reviewer, particularly if reviewer opinions are contradictory or if there is a need for specific expertise, e. g. additional review by a statistical expert. . After all reviews have been completed, the editor and editorial board decide to either a. accept the manuscript, b. accept the manuscript after (minor) revision, c. reject the article, but invite to revise the manuscript, or d. reject the manuscript. 8. Note that an editor will generally reserve the right to edit your reviewer comments to the author. Over-enthusiastic com pliments may be removed if the editor eventually decides to reject the paper. Also, you may see that your comments the editor are also passed on to the authors if the editor feels this is appropriate. 9. If a manuscript is resubmitted after revision, it is usually resent to the original reviewers. [edit]How do I start? Before reading the manuscript, make sure you know the aims and scope of the journal. Read the manuscript and supplementary files for a first time, without spending too much time on details. Consider reading additional literature, such as relating articles by the same authors. Then re-read the manuscript in detail and try to follow the line of thought of the authors. Identify the hypothesis, key findings and assess if the (discussion of) the results adequately reflects back on the original hypothesis. Critically assess the methods and representation of data in the text, tables and figures. Draft a review. Re-read the manuscript and re-read you review. [edit]What to look for? Visit the journal’s website, where criteria for reviewers are commonly supplied. Also, see if there is a score-sheet as this will also tell you what the editors would like you to look for. As a general check-list, consider the following points (taken from the BMJ website): †¢ Is the paper important? †¢ Is the work original? Does the work add enough to what is already in the literature? †¢ Is there a clear message? Does the paper read well and make sense? †¢ Is this journal the right place for this paper? Scientific reliability: †¢ Abstract/summary — does it reflect accurately what the paper says? †¢ Research question — is it clearly defined and appropriately answered? †¢ Overall design of study — is it adequate? †¢ Participants studied   are they dequately described and their conditions defined? †¢ Methods — are they adequately described? For randomised trials: CONSORT Ethical? †¢ Results — does it answer the research question? Credible? Well presented? †¢ Usefulness of tables and figures? Is the quality good enough? Can some eliminated? Is the data correct in the tables? †¢ Interpretation and conclusions — are they warranted by and sufficiently derived from/focused on the data? Message clear? †¢ References — are they up to date and relevant? Any glaring omissions? [edit]How to put it in words? As a reviewer, it is your task to objectively assess the strengths and weaknesses in a manuscript, provide constructive criticism and list suggestions for improvement. It may help to organize your reviewer comments to the author as follows: – a brief summary of the findings in the article. This helps organize your own grasp on the data in the article. Also, it helps the associate editor and editorial board to understand the content of the manuscript. Finally, it shows the author that you have read and understood the manuscript. – consider giving a general comment on the article on e. g. novelty and overall impression of the data and manuscript preparation. -list major comments. Number them for clarity. Major comments are comments, questions and/or suggestions that are in your view essential points that need to be appropriately addressed for the manuscript to become acceptable for publication. list minor comments such as typographic errors or suggestions for additional non-essential data to be included. Also keep in mind: Be kind. Even a ‘bad’ paper has generally required substantial investment of time and effort by the authors. Do not be tempted by the reviewer anonymousity to make unkind remarks. Be fair. Try to be objectively critical. Do not hesi tate to identify flaws in the manuscript, but keep eye for balancing criticism with potential strengths of the manuscript, technical limitations and the nature of the journal. If you give criticism, also give a motivation, including literature references if applicable. Be concise. Be ‘action-able’. Providing practical suggestions for textual changes or additional experiments helps convey what you think would improve the manuscript better than simple criticism. [edit]What to recommend? You give advice to the editor regarding the manuscript and this advice generally includes an advice on how the paper should be handled. It is a misconception that reviewers decide if a paper is accepted: the editor and editorial board ultimately decide. This also means that it is essential to refrain from including an advice on acceptance or rejection of a paper in the review comments that are provided. Editors may edit your comments if you imply acceptance or rejection. Consider recommending a major revision if you feel the paper would become acceptable for publication if your suggestions are adequately addressed. If you feel that the manuscript would be insufficient for publication even after revision, e. g. based on limited novelty, rejection would be more appropriate. [edit]How to approach a revision? If a manuscript is returned to the authors with the invitation to resubmit after revision, you will commonly be asked to review the revised manuscript and author correspondence with replies to your comments. However, this is at the editor’s discretion. If you receive a revised manuscript, focus on the response to your own review and in principle limit yourself to the points you previously raised. See if the authors have satisfactorily addressed your comments. Check with your original comments to see if the authors have included all the points you raised. It is not good practice if you come up with new criticisms regarding points that you could have identified during your first assessment of the manuscript. Also, try to finish your re-evaluation with some priority as this is customary with resubmissions and will prevent excessive delay of anuscript publication. If you had numbered your major comments and had provided action-able suggestions, you will now appreciate the importance of doing so. [edit]I’ve done all this work†¦ what do I get out of it? Writing a good review takes costly time. However, there are several reasons why every researcher should write peer-reviews. First, for you as a researcher, you will find that participating in the reviewing process will increase the quality of your own work and likelihood of getting your articles accepted. You’re given an insider’s view of the reviewing process. Also, going through the process of peer-reviewing a manuscript and reading other reviewer’s comments, will help you critically assess your own manuscript more effectively. Second, for you as a researcher, building a track record of journals that request your services as a reviewer may be a component of your curriculum vitae. Also, a track record of good reviews will enhance your reputations with the editors. Third, as a reviewer, you’re given an early peak at novel unpublished data. This brings a major responsibility and breaching confidentiality to scoop a submitting author would be a serious offence. However, it may give an incentive to (re)direct your experiments so that you have a ‘head-start’ after eventual publication of the manuscript you’re reviewing. Fourth, writing a review means you are participating in the social culture of research. You are helping the editor that invited you. You are making peer-review possible for the submitting author and ultimately, you are enabling the continuing process of keeping a high quality level of science. Finally, invited editorial comments are often commissioned to reviewers that provided a good track record of peer reviews and showed profound insight in he reviewed manuscript. [edit]Further reading http://www. people. vcu. edu/~aslee/referee. htm http://www. medscape. com/viewarticle/409692_3 Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA. 1997 Mar 19;277(11):927-34 Downloadable from e. g. [here] Home  Ã‚  Ã‚  About  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Cont act  Ã‚  Ã‚  Contribute  Ã‚  Ã‚  Feedback †¢ Log in / create account ? Research Topics ? Learning Resources ? Dutch Investigators ? Dutch Publications ? Clinical Trials ? Practical PhD guide ? Useful links pic] ? Online forum [pic] ? Agenda ? PLAN/Courses ? Newsletters ? Spotlights ? Photo Gallery ? Jobs/Trainees Top of Form [pic][pic]  Ã‚  [pic] Bottom of Form Supported by: [pic] [pic] [pic] | | | | ? About NIER ? Disclaimers ? Views: 5,040 ? Modified: 13:53, 26 January 2009. ? Hosted by Xentax Foundation |Reviewing a Manuscript | |for Publication | |Allen S. Lee | |Professor, Department of Information Systems   | |Eminent Scholar, Information Systems Research Institute | |School of Business   | |Virginia Commonwealth University | |http://www. eople. vcu. edu/~aslee/ | |Published as an invited note in | |Journal of Operations Management   | |Volume 13, Number 1 (July 1995), pp. 7-92. | |If you copy, download, or circulate this paper, please simply inform the author (at  AllenSLee@alum. mit. edu) | |that you are doing so. | |This paper is based on remarks that the author prepared for presentation at the New Faculty Workshop held at | |the 23rdAnnual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute in Miami Beach, Florida, November 22, 1991. |  Ã‚   | |[pic] | |Abstract | |This paper offers suggestions about how to review a manuscript submitted for publication in the fields of | |management information systems, organizational studies, operations management, and management in general. |Rationales for the suggestions and illustra tive sample comments are provided. | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |[pic] | |Contents | |Abstract | |Action 1:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Start out with your own summary of the manuscript. | |Action 2:  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Let the editor and author know what your expertise does, and does not, cover. |Action 3:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Give â€Å"action-able† advice. | |Action 4:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Convince the authors by arguing from their own assumptions and framework. | |Action 5:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Provide both (1) your general, overall reaction and (2) a list of specific, numbered | |point-by-point comments. | |Action 6:  Ã‚  Ã‚   List the manuscript’s strengths. | |Action 7:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Quote, give the page number, or otherwise explicitly locate the parts of the manuscript to which | |you are referring. | |Action 8:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Offer comments on tables, figures, and diagrams. |Action 9:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Be kind. | |Action 10:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Be frank, in a tactful way, about your own emotional reaction. | |Action 11:  Ã‚  Ã‚   D o some of your own library research. | |Action 12:  Ã‚  Ã‚   If rejecting the manuscript, suggest what future research efforts might examine. | |Action 13:  Ã‚  Ã‚   If recommending a revision, spell out alternative scenarios for how the revision could be done. | |Action 14:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Provide citations or a bibliography. | |Action 15:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Date your review. | |Why Review? |Conclusion | |  Ã‚   | |[pic] | | | |As management researchers, we regard the behavior of managers, systems professionals, and other organizational | |participants to be a manifestation of the values that they hold as members of their organization and their | |profession. In the same way, we may regard our own behaviors, as reviewers of manuscripts in the â€Å"double blind†| |reviewing process, to be a manifestation of the values that we hold as members of the community of scholars. As| |an author and editor, I have seen our community manifest the best and the worst of human values in th e | |anonymous reviews offered on manuscripts submitted for publication. Some reviewers rise to the occasion and | |give extensive help, even though the anonymous reviewing process promises them nothing in return for their | |efforts. Other reviewers hide behind the anonymity of the reviewing process, offering negative remarks that | |they would not have the courage to voice in public. My immediate purpose is to offer suggestions, based on the | |reviews I have seen as an author and editor, about how to provide useful, kind, constructive, and responsible | |reviews of manuscripts submitted for publication. I offer these suggestions to my colleagues who review | |manuscripts submitted for publication in research journals in management information systems, organizational | studies, operations management, and other fields of management. | |1. Suggestions for Reviewing a Manuscript | |For many of the suggestions below, I offer sample comments to illustrate my points. I have based these comments| |on actual reviews. | |1. 1  Ã‚  Ã‚   Start out with Your Own Summary of the Manuscript | | | |As a reviewer for a manuscript, I was surprised, upon subsequently receiving the associate editor’s own review,| |to see that he began with a summary of the manuscript. After all, an author knows what his or her own | |manuscript is about, so why summarize it? | |Apparently, at least in this case, the summary was provided for the benefit of the senior editor, not | |necessarily the author. The associate editor’s review was, I realized, as much a recommendation to the senior | |editor as it was an explanation to the authors. Because a reviewer’s review is, in the same way, a | |recommendation to an editor, I have come to believe that a summary of the manuscript being considered is no | |less useful in the reviewer’s review. | |I now believe that an opening summary may also be useful to the manuscript’s author and to the reviewer himself| |or herself. For the author, how effectively the reviewer’s summary does or does not capture the gist of the | |manuscript may serve as one measure of how effectively the manuscript communicates its message. For the | |reviewer, the very exercise of composing a summary encourages and virtually assures a thorough reading of the | |manuscript. | |Opening summaries are also useful to the editor when the manuscript is controversial. Occasionally, as an | |editor, I have wondered if the different reviewers assigned to a controversial manuscript have actually been | |sent the same manuscript. An opening summary of the manuscript, presented from the reviewer’s own perspective, | |would be a big help to the editor when he or she is trying to reach a decision on a manuscript that evokes | |controversial reactions. |Some illustrative sample comments are: | |This paper represents a major effort to test two competing theories about user satisfaction with electronic | |mail†¦ The methodolo gy of the paper consists of†¦ The data were gathered from two field sites†¦ The major | |finding was that†¦ The contributions to theory and practice would appear to be†¦ | |  Ã‚   | |This manuscript pursues two somewhat conflicting goals. It attempts to†¦, while it also tries to†¦. The authors | |do a good job of the first one, but their treatment of the second one raises more questions than it answers. | | | |1.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Let the Editor and Author Know What Your Expertise Does, and Does Not, Cover | | | |By stating where you have expertise and, no less important, where you lack expertise, you will be helping the | |editor and author in their job of interpreting and weighing your comments. Reviewers, in voluntarily | |identifying where their expertise may be lacking with regard to the manuscript being reviewed, might even gain | |additional credibility for their claims about where they do have expertise. | |I read the paper from two perspectiv es: 1) someone who has employed the same methodology that the authors are | |using and 2) someone who is not familiar at all with the substantive area that the authors are investigating. | |My criticisms and suggestions are offered entirely from the first perspective. |For the reader, such as myself, who is unfamiliar with concepts X, Y, and Z, the authors present no helpful | |explanation of these concepts or justification for their inclusion in the study in the first place†¦Ã‚  Ã‚   | |  Ã‚   | |Another problem I had is that, probably like most of the people who read this journal, I am not deeply read in | |all three of the research fields that the authors draw upon. I cannot judge how well this paper builds on past | |research. | |   | |1. 3  Ã‚  Ã‚   Give â€Å"Action-able† Advice | |Advice stated in the form of do-able tasks is mutually advantageous to the author and the reviewer in the event| |that the editor asks for a revision. For the author, the advised actions point to a â€Å"fixed target† where he or | |she may aim the revision. For the reviewer, the advised actions (as further interpreted by the editor) may | |serve as the criteria on which to judge the revision. In contrast, a reviewer who offers vague generalities, | |and no action-able advice, in his or her first review would have no real â€Å"handle† with which to approve or | |disapprove the revision; such a reviewer might very well find a revision returning to â€Å"haunt† him or her. | |If my concerns can be addressed successfully in a revision, then I believe the paper should be published. I | |have four major concerns. They are†¦ | |  Ã‚   | |Therefore, I recommend rejection, but would be willing to review a revised version if (1) †¦Ã‚   and (2) †¦Ã‚   | |  Ã‚   | |The following suggestions are provided to improve the weaknesses pointed out above: | |Clearly state the objectives, contributions, and limitations of the study. | |Provide a definition of what you mean by Organizational Support System and use it consistently throughout the | |paper. | |Using this definition, narrow down the literature review. | |1.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Convince the Authors by Arguing from  Their Own Assumptions and Framework | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |A reviewer can always take issue with a manuscript’s assumptions and framework. However, disagreeing with the | |assumptions is not always an effective reviewing strategy because, strictly speaking, all assumptions are | |incorrect for what they assume away. An alternative strategy is to accept the manuscript’s assumptions (if only| |for the sake of argument) and then to point out any shortcomings in the manuscript by examining the | |consequences that follow from these assumptions. (Indeed, if the assumptions lead to no objectionable | |consequences, then the assumptions might not be bad assumptions in the first place.    By casting the review in | |terms of the authors’ own framework, the reviewer might then be more likely to convince the authors by courting| |and affirming the authors, rather than by disputing the authors. | |On the first page, the paper says that it will do the following†¦ The rest of the paper, however, does not | |follow through adequately on what it promised to do. In particular, according to the standards of the research | |framework that the authors themselves have chosen, the following things still need to be done or need to be | |done better†¦ Still, there is much potential value in what the paper initially proposed and I encourage the | |authors to flesh out the paper’s ide as more thoroughly. Along these lines, my suggestions are†¦ | |If the reviewer wishes to suggest a different framework and set of assumptions to the authors, this suggestion | |would be more convincing after the reviewer has demonstrated that he or she has given due consideration to the | |authors’ original framework, rather than dismissing it outright. | |1. 5  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Provide Both (1) Your General, Overall Reaction and (2) a List of Specific, Numbered Point-by-Point | |Comments | |  Ã‚   | |As an author, I have received some reviews consisting entirely of numbered, point-by-point comments that give | |the impression that the reviewer was simply typing up his or her review as he or she was reading my manuscript | |linearly, sentence-by-sentence, turning it page-by-page. Whereas such a review might be detailed and even | |exhaustive, I have found that such reviews sometimes negatively criticize me on matters that I actually address| |satisfactorily later in the manuscript. These reviewers do a good job of analyzing the words in my manuscript, | |but they appear to put no effort into discerning what I meant by these words. My impression has been that these| |reviewers considered the reviewing job to be a burden and just wanted to get it over. I have found that if | |there is no statement of an overall reaction from the reviewer, I am sometimes left wondering about what the | |reviewer really means. In fact, in this situation, I sometimes wonder if the reviewer himself knows what he | |means. For these reasons, I believe that a general, overall reaction or overview from the reviewer is needed as| |much as his or her specific, point-by-point comments. | |  However, there is at least one occasion in which a linear, sentence-by-sentence, and page-by-page reading | |might be useful. When I am a reviewer, I will occasionally amend my review by paging through the manuscript | |once more and enumerating, point-by-point, any comments which I had planned to make when I first read the | |manuscript, but which somehow did not make their way into the main body of my review. | |Numbering the major points in a review is helpful to the editor and author. For instance, an editor could then | |conveniently say to the author, â€Å"Pay particular attention to points 2, 3, and 5 by Reviewer 1. † | |1. 6  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  List the Manuscript’s Strengths | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |Perhaps the most disheartening review I have ever seen is one that began with the single-sentence paragraph, | |â€Å"There are several problems with this paper,† and followed with a numbered, blow-by-blow listing of all the | |alleged problems in the manuscript. An accompanying listing of the manuscript’s strengths would have made the | |review more palatable (and hence convincing) to the author. |   | |A listing of the manuscript’s strengths takes on added importance when the reviewer’s recommendation is that | |the manuscript should be rejected. Is there really nothing in the manuscript that would make it worthy of a | |revision? Making up a list of the manuscript’s strengths would help make sure that no stone is left u nturned. | |The major asset of this manuscript is that it presents a new approach to†¦This, in turn, raises interesting | |general issues such as: (1)†¦(2)†¦(3)†¦Ã‚   | |  Ã‚   | |Major strengths. |The objective of this paper is of high interest and use to IS managers. | |The authors are exceptionally clear about how this study builds on past studies. | |The methodology, while new to IS, is clearly explained. | |1. 7  Ã‚  Ã‚   Quote, Give the Page Number, or Otherwise Explicitly Locate the Parts of the Manuscript to Which You | |Are Referring | |This will pinpoint what you find difficult to understand, what you disagree with, or exactly what you believe | |needs to be changed. Moreover, if the author should disagree with your assessment, then the author may respond | |precisely to your objection. |In the third paragraph on page 9, it is not clear to me that the authors understand the concept of construct | |validity. | |  Ã‚   | |On page 3, in the literat ure review section, the paper says, â€Å"†¦only 12 percent of the past studies examined the| |same factors we will be examining in this study†¦. † Exactly which studies were these? I do not doubt your | |statement, but I would like to be able to evaluate it for myself. | |  Ã‚   | |On page 2, why does the prior research necessarily suggest that we need to study this topic, as you claim? | |1.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Offer Comments on Tables, Figures, and Diagrams | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |Because tables, figures, and diagrams often appear at the end of the manuscript, they often do not receive the | |attention they deserve. However, I believe that reviewing an illustration can be equivalent to reviewing a | |thousand words. Because illustrations are often overlooked in reviews, a detailed comment about an illustration| |might favorably impress the author and editor, suggesting to them that the reviewer is especially | |conscientious. Also, suggesting a new table, figure, or d iagram may encourage the author to sharpen his or her | |argument. | |Table 6 makes no sense to me. The labels along the vertical axis are mentioned nowhere in the text. | |I don’t understand the reason for including Figure 4. What is the relevance of the number of X broken down | |into three categories? | |1. 9  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Be Kind | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |There are tactful ways to express negative criticisms. For example, if you are unsure what the contribution of | |the manuscript is, say  Ã¢â‚¬Å"What’s new? †Ã‚  instead of â€Å"So what? †I believe that if the criticism cannot be stated in a| |kind and constructive way, then the criticism might not be worth stating at all. Also, unkind remarks in a | |review that is otherwise valid may create difficulties for the editor who would like to persuade the author | |that the review does have merit. | |1. 10  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Be Frank, in a Tactful Way, about Your Own Emotional Reaction | |  Ã‚   | |Some reviews tend to be dry. As an author and editor, I find that any hint or explicit statement about the | |reviewer’s feelings will help me to interpret what he or she means. | |I had a hard time making a recommendation on this manuscript . . . The paper is nicely written and competent, | |but dull. It is hard to get excited about the findings. | |I am very excited about this paper. At a recent conference a colleague and I were on a panel where we debated | |similar points†¦ | |1. 11  Ã‚  Ã‚   Do Some of Your Own Library Research | |  Ã‚   | |In my experience as an author and editor, I tend to give an extra measure of credibility to reviewers who have | |done some library or other research for their review. This effort makes the review appear sincere and | |convincing. A quotation from a book or article that the reviewer has looked up can be impressive. |On page 14, I was intrigued by the paper’s quotation of Carlson, so I decided to look up Carlson’s article. My | |interpretation of Carlson’s article is. . . | |1. 12  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  If Rejecting the Manuscript, Suggest What Future Research Efforts Might Examine | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |Our own behavior as reviewers in the â€Å"double blind† review process reveals our individual values, which may | |include adversarial values and collegial values. Rejecting a manuscript and offer ing only the reasons for | |rejection reveals a person who has no contribution to make to the overall community of scholars. Rejecting a | |manuscript, but also offering suggestions about what the author could pursue instead or pursue differently in | |future research, reveals a person who is integrated into the community of scholars and seeks to foster its | |growth. | |1. 13  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  If Recommending a Revision, Spell Out Alternative Scenarios for How the Revision Could be Done | |  Ã‚   | |Simply saying â€Å"this paper needs a good re-write† is not, by itself, helpful, especially if it is true. Often, | |there is more than one way to revise a manuscript. Suggest two or more scenarios, mention what you believe to | |be the advantages or disadvantages of each one, and leave the choice up to the author. | |1. 4  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Provide Citations or a Bibliography | |  Ã‚   | |A citation that the author finds helpful can be as valuable as a thousand or more words in the rest of the | |review. | |1. 15  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Date Your Review | |  Ã‚   | |As an author and editor, I do not apprecia te late reviews. Once, I noticed that a colleague of min e | |prominently displayed the current date at the top of a review that he was about to send in. He said that the | |date would let the authors of the manuscript know that, if the overall cycle time on their manuscript was | |excessive, he was not the cause. I also suspect that a date on a review can function as an incentive for | |subsequent participants in the review process to act on the manuscript promptly. | |2. Why Review? | |   | |I see four benefits to engaging in the effort of reviewing a manuscript submitted for publication. | |Benefits to the Reviewer in the Short Run  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Typically, a reviewer will receive the reviews by the other | |reviewers and the editor. Doing a review therefore confers an insider’s view of the reviewing process. The | |reactions of the other reviewers and the editor all contain potential lessons for one’s own manuscripts to be | |submitted for publication. In reviewing manuscripts, one also gains access to invaluable bibliographies. | |Access to these bibliographies is sufficient justification, in itself, to find the time to participate in the | |reviewing process. | |Benefits to the Reviewer in the Long Run  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Good reviewers are hard to find. A track record of good reviews | |will enhance one’s reputation with editors, who may then serve (if need be) as job contacts or outside | |reviewers in one’s tenure, promotion, and re-appointment process. In this regard, one’s performance in his or | |her review of a manuscript can be compared to one’s performance in a job interview. Good reviews can benefit | |one’s career. | |Benefits to Others  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Numerous people have helped me launch my career as an university teacher and researcher. | |When they ask me to review a manuscript for which they are the editor or track chair, I regard their request as| |an opportunity for me to return some of the help they have given me. In our research culture, doing a review | |of a manuscript is a socially significant gesture. | |Benefits to One’s Own School of Thought  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As an author, I often have the experience in which reviewers, | |hostile to and ignorant of the research traditions that I embrace, misreview my submission. Therefore, | |whenever I find that I am a reviewer for a submission that falls in my own school of thought, I expend extra | |efforts to give it a careful, constructive review. Realizing that the refereeing process is political, I will | |do my best to be supportive and affirmingly critical, drawing attention to any major significant points in the | |submission and delineating in explicit, constructive, and â€Å"action-able† ways how the author’s research can be | |improved. As a result, the editor would, if necessary, have some â€Å"ammunition† with which to neutralize any | |hostile and ignorant reviews and thereby to justify a positive editorial decision on this submission. | |3. Conclusion | |No review of a manuscript must incorporate all the features I have described above. I am also confident that | |there are additional useful features I have not yet encountered. I have identified these features based on my | |own experience as a member of the management research community. I encourage my colleagues to do the same. | |Do actual instances of good reviews follow from rules for how to review a manuscript for publication, or do | |rules for ho How to cite Paper Evaluation, Papers

Managerial Accounting Superior Organizational Performance

Question: Describe about the Managerial Accounting for Superior Organizational Performance. Answer: Introduction The importance of performance measurement and management control has emerged due to controlling and measuring the roles played by the corporate managers in driving superior organizational performance. The implication of the system helps the organizations from various industries in measuring their approaches in comparison with the key success factors (Kaplan and Atkinson 2015). This report is fabricated with the primary intention of comparing and contrasting the performance of the companies by developing analytical knowledge about the approaches adopted by the management of and methods followed as part of the remuneration system of the chosen companies. Here, it is important to mention that the companies selected for performing the assessment and developing comparative overview are Woolworths Limited, Metcash, Coles Supermarkets, and Australian Agricultural Company. The chosen companies are operating in different industries with the only similarity is based on their trading on the Aus tralian Stock Exchange (ASX) as the public company. Woolworths Limited is a public retailer; wherein Metcash is a marketer and distributor of groceries and other consumer goods. In case of Coles, it is a subsidiary of Wesfarmers and operating in the retail supermarket division. Lastly, Australian Agricultural Company is publicly traded organization performing in beef and agriculture industry. Background Material According to Kaplan (2015), the fundamental application of accounting and performance measurement systems is recurrently advised by the various scholars and researcher from the accounting and finance division aiming to ensure the execution of right strategies. The intention behind such recommendation is steering the firm towards the long-term enhancement of its organizational performance. Based on the complex needs of the current business world, the contemporary accounting and performance measurement system comprise of the amalgamation of both financial and non-financial performance measures linked with the specific strategies adopted by the businesses (Simons 2013). Simons (2013) has pointed out some of the chief examples in this particular context, such as balanced scorecard (BSC) and multi-criteria key performance indicators (KPI), which can be accompanied as part of the contemporary system. Otley and Emmanuel (2013) has significantly identified one of the major facts that the org anization of modern days is additionally burdened with offering value to its key stakeholders apart from critically emphasising on enhancing the shareholders worth. Hence, the precise scenario leads the firms from different industries to rely heavily on its contemporary accounting and performance measurement (CAPM) system for tackling the risks generated from financial and non-financial factors associated with each task while accomplishing those successfully (Otley and Emmanuel 2013). From the application of various kinds of investigation carried out by different scholars like Simons (2013), Otley and Emmanuel (2013), Drury (2013), Melnyk et al. (2014), apparent degree of understanding can be revealed regarding the reasons driving the organizations adopting the proposed system. The application of these studies also helps to gain knowledge about the accounting theories associated with the process while their workability to measure and control organizational performance. One of the works developed by the accounting and financial professional indicated that the implementation of CAPM system provides imperative influences on behaviour and performance of an organizational individual, where the finding of some other works has come up with observing the effects of the particular system in the overall team performance (Arjalis and Mundy 2013). According to Van Dooren, Bouckaert, and Halligan (2015), the suitable introduction of CAPM system allows the firm to sort out the optimum strategies for the enterprise with the capability of offering highest potential for achieving the predefined objectives of the firm. The study further added that the particular resolution is devised by the proposed system to the company through disseminating analytical information about financial and non-financial perspectives associated with the chosen operations. The noteworthy presence of accounting and performance measurement system provides assistance in aligning approaches and procedures defined by the management through various useful activities like setting up goals for the team, evaluating the performance, and making constructive decisions (Van Dooren, Bouckaert, and Halligan 2015). The combination of the recognised approaches is precious for the management to develop and sustain a control over the various measures taken to deal with the identified market conditions. Alternatively, there are various arguments regarding the definition, applications, and implications of the overall system as reflected through a number of literature produced by some other scholars. Studies like Melnyk et al. (2014), Arjalis and Mundy (2013), and Gond et al. (2012) divulged that the definition and implication of accounting and performance measurement system lack an agreed viewpoint. The scenario results in the creation of rising level of confusions and lim iting the effects on the performance of business (DRURY 2013). For example, Gond et al. (2012) have dictated that implications and functioning of the entire system are based on assumptions regarding financial and non-financial performance measures, where the elementary application of the system is only limited in evaluating the workforce and organizational performance from motivational and informational perspectives. Another study developed by Melnyk et al. (2014) have unveiled the fact that proper performance of the accounting and performance measurement system depends widely on the availability of supporting infrastructure, which mostly varies from the simple method of gathering and analysing data. Often the implementation of a CAMP system requires employing sophisticated information thoroughly supported by either business intelligence solutions or enterprise resource planning (ERP) system (Melnyk et al. 2014). Finally, with the help of the accounting theories and guidelines defined by the vital scholars and professionals contribute to obtaining the understanding that the active introduction of accounting and performance measurement system highly emphasise the need of proper investment on the associated infrastructure. Through maintaining a successful system, the firms can be able to gain information provision, capturing the operational data, designing measures regardless how the functions are performed. Comparison of Findings Based on the suggestions provided by Zhu and Azar (2015), analysing the performance of the company principally indicates the assessment of financial performance in the identified market. On the other hand, remunerations system mainly prioritise the need of providing a range of monetary and non-monetary rewards to the employees to provide them the increasing opportunities for satisfying their needs and contributing more efficiently to the company (Gond et al. 2012). Based on the assessment of Woolworths financial performance, the company has posted an after-tax loss of around $973 million, which can be ascertained from its half-yearly financial records obtained from the profit and loss statement for the year ending 2015 (AnnuAl RepoRt 2015 - Woolworths Limited 2015). Based on the investigation, the inevitable loss significantly occurs due to the failed venture of the retailer in its domestic improvement market. According to Kezner (2013), the identified financial result marks first failure for the retailing giant in the ASX after 23 years. In contrast, the remuneration report of Woolworths suggests that the remuneration committee has additionally embraced some components complying with the international best practices in the pay system with aim of forming best compensation practices for ensuring the development of a highly committed workforce (2015 Remuneration Report - Woolworths Holdings Limited 2016). From the assessment of financial report related to Metcash for the year ending 2015, it can be dictated that the organization may not be able to achieve the growth in its earning until 2018 (Annual Report - Metcash Limited. 2015). The particular reason behind the scenario is primarily based on the reducing grocery prices in the course of defending the market share of the group. Based on the remuneration report of the company, the policies and initiatives taken by the committee are chiefly influenced by the different conditions associated with the grocery market. The remuneration system formulates the current policies by significantly embedding the diversity schemes for satisfying the main requirements of its diversified workforce (Metcash 2016 Annual Report 2016). In case of Coles Supermarket, the company is significantly ahead of its competitor in different categories due to the operating downfall of Woolworths. The financial statements of the last eight years are reflecting a substantial increase in operating efficiencies of Coles from the multiple aspects like quality of fresh produce, pricing strategy, staffing, and value for money (Annual and industry reports - Coles 2016). Considering the remuneration system employed by Coles, a range of attractive benefits is provided to the employees in addition to their core packages in the form of short and long-term incentives, superannuation, and overall competitive package. Apart from that, the perquisites provided by the corporation like relocation or annual packages are the compelling package of remuneration system of Coles (2014 Annual Report - Reports 2016). From the analysis of the financial report of Australian Agricultural Company for 2015, the operations of the business have been able to reflect several positive sides. The primary reason for the favourable results is based on developing ways to transform the traditional production process through vertically integrating into the beef business (Annual Reports - AACo - Australian Agricultural Company 2016). Due to such integration, the company has achieved an operating EBITDA of $11.5 million in the first quarter of its 2016 financial report compared to the loss in the prior corresponding period. From the application of the remuneration report developed by the company, AAC has undertaken a review of its executive compensation strategy for supervising the implications adequately responding to the changing needs of shareholders, business, and contemporary marketplace (AACO 2016 ANNUAL REPORT 2016). The Staff and Remuneration Committee is developed by the firm in three distinctive division s for designing guiding resolutions for several disputes faced by the relevant employees. Summary of Findings From the analysis involving the annual statements and remuneration reports of the selected companies, some of the key concepts are extracted from the operational performance and compensation system established by the business. It is observed that Coles Supermarket adopts most viable accounting and performance measurement system in the Australian background, which can be evidenced by the significantly escalating performance of the organization in the retail supermarket division. From the application of annual report, several key performances indicating results are determined including the hike in revenues, income, sale of food and liquor in 2015. With reference to the feedback provided by Kaplan (2015), the fairness of the performance measurement system adopted by the company reflects within the strategy employed by the corporation in its contemporary business proceedings. Some of the practical components of its current strategy are freshness of quality, opportunities to build luminou s careers, simplicity in the business approaches, and transformation of services to created value and trust among the customers (Spekl and Verbeeten 2014). Conclusion The result of analysis done by four different companies listed as public limited companies in ASX, it must need to be stated that the foremost plausible approach is attained by the efforts put forwarded by the senior executives and management division of Coles Supermarket. Alternatively, Metcash Limited is the particular corporation amongst the other to come up with a standard approach as part of its remuneration system dedicated for the organizational employees. The remuneration committee of the company understands the need of devising suitable policies and initiatives by considering the various needs of its diversified workforce. Workplace diversity is a key factor facilitating the organization to manage assorted requirements of the market in the rise of globalisation and technologic advancement (Kerzner 2013). In case of Woolworths, the after-tax loss incurred by the company is solely accounted for the futile management decisions taken by the managers from the perspective of inves tment. The negative results observed from the financial statement of the company impose unfavourable outcomes to its operations resulting in affecting the performance measurement system. Based on the study, it is observed that productive upshot cannot be delivered by the performance measurement system of Woolworths regarding the accumulation of maximum returns to the shareholders (Zhu and Azar 2015). In case of Metcash, the performance of the company is satisfactory. However, the volatility of share prices in the market has significantly delayed the operational growth of the company by affecting the precise positioning strategy. Lastly, the operational strength of Australian Agricultural Company can be scrutinized by its comprehensive compensation scheme by prioritising the employees and key managerial personnel. The power of the overall remuneration system is decided by the stability of the settlements regardless of vicissitudes in the associated market. Therefore, the companies fr om the identified marketplace should need to embrace the best practices for the accounting and performance measurement system for bolstering the continuation of appropriate employment practices while managing to receive additional incentives from the chosen market. References 2014 Annual Report - Reports. (2016).2014 Annual Report - Reports. [online] Available at: https://www.wesfarmers.com.au/investor-centre/company-performance-news/reports [Accessed 14 Sep. 2016]. 2015 Remuneration Report - Woolworths Holdings Limited. (2016).2015 Remuneration Report - Woolworths Holdings Limited. [online] Available at: https://www.woolworthsholdings.co.za/investor/annual_reports/ar2015/whl_2015_remuneration_report.pdf [Accessed 14 Sep. 2016]. AACO 2016 ANNUAL REPORT. (2016).AACO 2016 ANNUAL REPORT. [online] Available at: https://www.aspecthuntley.com.au/asxdata/20160610/pdf/01748186.pdf [Accessed 14 Sep. 2016]. Annual and industry reports - Coles. (2016).Annual and industry reports - Coles. [online] Available at: https://www.coles.com.au/about-coles/annual-reports [Accessed 14 Sep. 2016]. Annual Report - Metcash Limited. (2015).Annual Report - Metcash Limited.. [online] Available at: https://www.metcash.com/investor-centre/financial-information/annual-report/ [Accessed 14 Sep. 2016]. AnnuAl RepoRt 2015 - Woolworths Limited. (2015).AnnuAl RepoRt 2015 - Woolworths Limited. [online] Available at: https://www.woolworthslimited.com.au/icms_docs/182381_Annual_Report_2015.pdf [Accessed 14 Sep. 2016]. Annual Reports - AACo - Australian Agricultural Company. (2016).Annual Reports - AACo - Australian Agricultural Company. [online] Available at: https://aaco.com.au/investors-media/annual-reports/ [Accessed 14 Sep. 2016]. Arjalis, D.L. and Mundy, J., 2013. The use of management control systems to manage CSR strategy: A levers of control perspective.Management Accounting Research,24(4), pp.284-300. DRURY, C.M., 2013.Management and cost accounting. Springer. Gond, J.P., Grubnic, S., Herzig, C. and Moon, J., 2012. Configuring management control systems: Theorizing the integration of strategy and sustainability.Management Accounting Research,23(3), pp.205-223. Kaplan, R.S. and Atkinson, A.A., 2015.Advanced management accounting. PHI Learning. Kerzner, H.R., 2013.Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley Sons. Melnyk, S.A., Bititci, U., Platts, K., Tobias, J. and Andersen, B., 2014. Is performance measurement and management fit for the future?.Management Accounting Research,25(2), pp.173-186. Metcash 2016 Annual Report. (2016).Metcash 2016 Annual Report. [online] Available at: https://www.metcashannualreport.com/ [Accessed 14 Sep. 2016]. Otley, D. and Emmanuel, K.M.C., 2013.Readings in accounting for management control. Springer. Simons, R., 2013.Levers of control: how managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Harvard Business Press. Spekl, R.F. and Verbeeten, F.H., 2014. The use of performance measurement systems in the public sector: Effects on performance.Management Accounting Research,25(2), pp.131-146. Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J., 2015.Performance management in the public sector. Routledge. Woolworths Online. (2016).Woolworths Supermarket - Buy Groceries Online. [online] Available at: https://www.woolworths.com.au/ [Accessed 14 Sep. 2016]. Zhu, Q. and Azar, A.T., 2015.Complex system modelling and control through intelligent soft computations. Germany: Springer.