Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Checklist For Scientific Journal I Will Use This Checklist As A Guide When Evaluating My Manuscript SL - No YES NO 1. Title 2. 3

    Uploaded by

    Hamood Ur Rahman
    12 views3 pages
    This checklist provides guidance for evaluating a scientific journal manuscript based on 36 criteria organized into sections for the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references. Key items include ensuring the title is informative and concise, the abstract summarizes all major sections in a single paragraph, the introduction provides relevant background and states research questions/hypotheses, the methods sufficiently describe procedures, results include tables/figures with proper labeling and referencing, the discussion interprets and compares results to prior studies while addressing broader significance, and references follow proper formatting and include at least five peer-reviewed sources from the past five years.

    Original Description:

    checklist for research paper publishing

    Original Title

    Checklist

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This checklist provides guidance for evaluating a scientific journal manuscript based on 36 criteria organized into sections for the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references. Key items include ensuring the title is informative and concise, the abstract summarizes all major sections in a single paragraph, the introduction provides relevant background and states research questions/hypotheses, the methods sufficiently describe procedures, results include tables/figures with proper labeling and referencing, the discussion interprets and compares results to prior studies while addressing broader significance, and references follow proper formatting and include at least five peer-reviewed sources from the past five years.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    12 views3 pages

    Checklist For Scientific Journal I Will Use This Checklist As A Guide When Evaluating My Manuscript SL - No YES NO 1. Title 2. 3

    Uploaded by

    Hamood Ur Rahman
    This checklist provides guidance for evaluating a scientific journal manuscript based on 36 criteria organized into sections for the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references. Key items include ensuring the title is informative and concise, the abstract summarizes all major sections in a single paragraph, the introduction provides relevant background and states research questions/hypotheses, the methods sufficiently describe procedures, results include tables/figures with proper labeling and referencing, the discussion interprets and compares results to prior studies while addressing broader significance, and references follow proper formatting and include at least five peer-reviewed sources from the past five years.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Checklist for Scientific Journal

    I will use this checklist as a guide when evaluating my manuscript.

    Sl.No YES NO
    1. TITLE Is the title sufficiently informative?
    2. Is the title concise?
    3. ABSTRACT Does the abstract summarize all major
    sections of the paper, including the
    introduction, methods, results, and
    discussion?
    4. Does the abstract consist of a single
    paragraph?
    5. Is the abstract sufficiently informative,
    yet concise?
    6. Are citations of references absent, as
    they should be?
    7. INTRODUCTION Does the introduction begin with a
    review of current knowledge of the
    general topic to be studied?
    8. Are appropriate references cited to
    support your statements?
    9. Are references cited in the proper
    format?
    10. Are your research questions or
    objectives explicitly stated?
    11. Are hypotheses explicitly stated?
    12. Does the introduction gradually narrow
    in focus and conclude with specific
    questions, objectives, and hypotheses
    to be addressed in your study?
    13. METHODS Are subheadings used to help organize
    this section?
    14. Is the study site sufficiently described?
    If the study was conducted in the
    laboratory, has this been made clear?
    15. Is the experimental design sufficiently
    described so that the study can be
    evaluated and repeated?
    16. Is the discussion of procedures
    restricted to those directly affecting the
    study results?
    17. Are appropriate references cited to
    support your statements?
    18. Are references cited in the proper
    format
    19. RESULTS Are tables and/or figures used to
    summarize the important results?
    20. Are tables and figures properly labeled
    with captions and axes labels?
    21. Are tables and figures referenced
    properly in the manuscript text?
    22. Are key results from statistical analyses
    (e.g., t statistics, critical t values)
    presented in tables or
    parenthetically in the manuscript text?
    23. Are key results in tables and figures
    summarized in the manuscript text?
    24. Did you indicate if hypotheses were or
    were not supported by statistical
    analysis results?
    25. Did you correctly refrain from
    interpreting results, comparing your
    results of other researchers,
    and speculating as to why results did or
    did not support hypotheses, etc.?
    26. DISCUSSION Does the discussion begin with a brief
    summary of key results?
    27. Are all key results interpreted and
    discussed in light of whether they did or
    did not support hypotheses?
    28. Are key results compared and
    contrasted with results from other
    studies?
    29. Are appropriate references cited to
    support your statements?
    30. Are references cited in the proper
    format?
    31. Does the discussion gradually broaden
    in focus and conclude by addressing
    the broader significance of this research
    project to advancement of science?
    32. REFERENCES Are at least five peer-reviewed
    references cited in the text of the
    paper?
    33. Were at least three of these references
    published between 2010 and the
    present year?
    34. Are cover pages of at least five cited
    sources included with your manuscript?
    35. Are all sources cited in the text listed in
    the references section and vice versa?
    36. Are sources cited using the proper
    format?

    You might also like