reviewing manuscript for p ublication workshop kessa 2014

Faith Maina Ph.D. (SUNY Oswego)Faith Maina Ph.D. (SUNY Oswego)

Kefa Otiso Ph.D. (Bowling Green)Kefa Otiso Ph.D. (Bowling Green)

Francis Koti Ph.D. (Northern Alabama)Francis Koti Ph.D. (Northern Alabama)

Purpose

Overview of peer review process

Elements included in quality review

Practice review

Overview of Peer Review Process

Review Process

Specific (differentiate from the thousands of

articles in the area) Concise (15 words or less) Variables (what exactly is being studied) Participants (who is in the study) Main title and subtitle (specific variables)

Titles

Concise (100-250 words) Purpose of study Research methodology (qualitative) Instruments (interviews, surveys, content

analysis, observations) Results (only highlights)

Abstracts

Introduce the problem area Establish its importance Provide an overview of the relevant literature Show how the current study will advance

knowledge in the area Describe specific questions, purposes in the

last paragraph of this section

Introductions & Literature Reviews

Selective referencing (citing only important

references) Critical review (strengths and weaknesses of

previously done studies) Currency of the literature (published in recent

years) Limited use of direct quotes Topic to topic (themes) Coherent essay with logical transitions Conceptual definition (brief)

Literature Reviews

Setting (study site) Population (who resides in that site) Sampling Instruments Procedure

Methodology

Sample Population/ only those who

participated in the study) Diverse (if this is significant to the research

question) Demographics (age, gender, level of

education, job group etc.) Size (if small, consider profiling each

participant)

Sampling

Interviews (actual interview schedule) Focus group interviews (organized around

themes) Content analysis (documents, videos, pictures

etc.) Observation (observation schedule)

Instruments

Entry into study site Letters seeking permission from relevant

authorities Informed consent for participants Administration of instruments

Procedure

Coding (method of analysis) Trustworthiness Member checking Descriptions of observations Clearly organized by themes (allow voice of

participants to be heard through direct quotes) 

Analysis and Results

Brief summary of purpose and highlights of

results Limitations (methodological flaws) Link to literature (only work cited in the

introduction and literature review) Interpretation of results (offer explanation of

unexpected findings) Implications (what actions should be taken) Future research (point to a specific direction)

Discussion, Conclusions &

Outcomes

Only the work cited in the text APA style

References

Practice Exercise

For each one, rate the extent of appropriateness where 5 is the highest rating. N/A (not applicable) I/I (insufficient information to make a judgement)TitleVery satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsatisfactory NA I/I

Explain:

AbstractVery satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsatisfactory NA I/I

Explain:

IntroductionVery satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsatisfactory NA I/I

Explain:

Evaluating a Manuscript

Practice Exercise

Literature Very satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsatisfactory NA I/IExplain:SampleVery satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsatisfactory NA I/IExplain:InstrumentVery satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsatisfactory NA I/IExplain:

Review Cont.’

Analysis Results Very satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsatisfactory

NA I/I

Explain:

 Discussion and ConclusionVery satisfactory 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsatisfactory

NA I/I

Explain: 

Review Cont.’

Role of Reviewer

Provide a rating (reject, invite major/minor revisions, accept)

Comments to authors Professional and respectful tone Corrective feedback

Confidential comments to associate editor