(A message to my students, sharing publicly because it can help others understand what commenting actually is about …. it’s often done wrong.)
I realized I didn’t instruct you properly on how to “edit and comment” papers. I want to fix my mistake.
When we talk about “edit and comment”, we don’t mean proof-reading. Proof-reading is the least important part. I generally proof-read my own work and there are few mistakes remaining once the paper reaches you. So, you can’t add much value by proof-reading.
Jim has a principle: “edit the paper for grammar and content”. Let’s see what this means:
First, grammar means not only spelling errors but making the language overall more fluent. Can some sentences be said with fewer words while retaining the meaning? Are some sentences useless (contain no valuable information)? Are some words redundant? Can a whole paragraph be removed? Should a paragraph be placed in a different section? Should a sentence be in some other section? Is there a disconnection in the flow of the sentences (i.e., does each sentence logically follow from the previous one)? These are some questions for “grammar”.
Second, content. This is the more important one. Essentially, you should switch your mindset from a collaborator to critic while reading the paper. You should assume the role and perspective of a reviewer who wants to reject this paper. You try to find things that are unclear, details that are missing, information that is conflicting, results that are not convincing, arguments that are too general or not really backed by the study. You want to think, “Is this paper interesting? Is it clearly expressed? Is it actually worth publishing?” And all this reflection you will add as comments.
Notice, though, that there’s one important principle, too: whatever YOU can fix regarding these issues, you will. Because you still are a co-author. There are some co-authors that just mention problems, like “Research gap is not clearly defined.” My reaction to them is, “Fix it, then!”. Only the issues that you notice that you cannot fix should be shouldered back to the paper’s lead, e.g., when it requires reanalyzing the data. So, generally, you want to be very critical in finding flaws but also very helpful in fixing those flaws that you identify. This is what it means to be a good co-author.
I realize you’re still learning research and may not actually know what issues to pay attention to. So, I’m adding below a list of questions that you can use next time. You can think of these questions while editing and commenting the paper. Try to challenge the paper and make a real contribution in improving it. Next time, I really want to see all of you try.
- Does the work identify a plausible research gap?
- Are the RQs clearly understandable? Are they relevant? Can they be answered via a literature review?
- Does the introduction define the key concepts of the study? Are those definitions clear and appropriate?
- Does the title match the content? Does it contain all the key concepts?
- Is the method description clear enough to understand what choices the author made and why? (if a method section was included)
- Does the method section contain specific details like search terms used, number of articles found and screened, databases used, screening criteria and so on? (if a method section was included)
- Are the references from reputable sources? (Impact Factor above 1, JUFO level 2 or 3)
- Do each of the references clearly address one or more of the RQs?
- Are there enough references to build a solid understanding of the literature?
- In its analysis, does the work compare the findings of different studies? (A practical way to see this is to look if the paragraphs contain references to multiple studies with comparative arguments — in contrast, if a paragraph only references one work repeatedly, it’s not a good sign)
- Does the author exhibit original thinking? (subjective assessment, but you’ll notice if the work leaves you thinking, “wow, the author really presented a novel angle to this topic”)
- Are there tables and figures that summarize information? Are these the original work of the author?
- Does each result section end with a short synthesis of the findings?
- Does the discussion section briefly summarize the answers to the RQs?
- Does the discussion section list practical implications for relevant stakeholders?
- Does the discussion section mention key limitations?
- How well does the discussion section formulate future research directions, and do those directions form a logical continuum from the current work?
- Does the conclusion clearly summarize the findings?
ps. I’m also attaching an example; a US7 paper that Jim edited. Look at his edits: they are thorough and thoughtful — while I’m not expecting the same kind of depth from you (yet :), you can learn more and strive toward this example. It’s a superpower that will be useful for you.
pps. anything in the paper is editable! Including the title (and often, the title CAN be improved)!
so, don’t be afraid to suggest changes.
Ilkka wanted to add one point: because you’re using track changes, you “can do whatever” (his words :). Meaning that the lead author can then use his or her own judgment to accept or reject the changes.