before you begin writing, make a few notes about the points you want to get across. While you're writing, try thinking of your reader as a friend to whom you're telling a story. Try to mention the name of the author and the book title in the first paragraph 151 there's nothing more frustrating than reading a review of a great book but not knowing who wrote it and what the title is! if possible, use one paragraph for each point you want to make about the book. Your reader should know right away what he or she is getting into should they choose to read the book! think about whether the book is part of a genre. Does the book fit into a type like mystery, adventure, or romance? what aspects of the genre does it use? what do you like or dislike about the book's writing style? is it funny? does it give you a sense of the place it's set? what is the author's/narrator's voice like? try using a few short quotes from the book to illustrate your points.

This is not absolutely necessary, but it's a good way to give your reader a sense of the author's writing style. Make sure your review explains how you feel about the book and why, not just what the book is about. A good review should express the reviewer's opinion and persuade the reader to share it, to read the book, or to avoid reading it. Biographical information can help you formulate your opinion about the book, and gives your review a depth.

Research Methods for Dissertation

Remember, a book doesn't come directly from a printing press, it's a product of an author's mind, and therefore it may be helpful to know something about the author and how she or he came to write the book. For instance, a little research will reveal the following about author harper lee:

to kill a mockingbird. Some people think she based the character dill on truman capote, a famous writer who was her childhood friend. the notes in this section are adapted from instructions provided by the agronomy journal, the journal of consumer research, the american journal of pharmaceutical education, and the canadian journal of agricultural economics. The ideal reviewer will approach the paper in terms of questions such as: is the science good? and is it understandable? or what is needed to make it clear? rather than what are all the little things that annoy me in style or presentation? volunteer reviewers and editorial board members are asked to decline from reviewing papers of any authors with whom there is a possibility or appearance of a conflict of interest.

Essay on My Hometown Lucknow

Although it is difficult to be completely objective when assessing a paper that may not coincide with one's own beliefs or values, nevertheless, a reviewer must always strive for that goal. If a reviewer cannot separate the evaluation process from a desire to advocate a preferred theory or to reject the manuscript out of hand on philosophical grounds, then the reviewer should disqualify himself or herself from that review. If it is not published but you wish to use it, you need to contact the author e.g.

Abstracts accompany articles in most journals, and they are often republished as printed in secondary abstracting services and journals. A reader should be able to tell readily the value of the article and whether or not to read it completely. It also should provide the literature searcher with enough information to assess its value and to index it for later retrieval. According to the agronomy journal, the abstract should: strive for an impersonal, non critical, and informative account.

The statement should give a brief account of the purpose, need, and significance of the investigation hypothesis or how the present work differs from previous work. Be quantitative and avoid the use of general terms, especially in presenting the method and reporting the results. If cutting aspects out, i'd look at dropping methods, reducing objectives to a minimum, and limiting results and conclusions to absolute highlights. Does the formatting of headings, tables and figures correspond to journal style? are the conclusions supported by the data presented? are there alternative explanations for the findings presented? should the manuscript be shortened? across all the review rounds, reviewers should strive to distinguish between what is perceived as correctable versus uncorrectable problems and between major versus minor concerns. The first round of reviews is the time for reviewers to highlight uncorrectable problems or other major concerns about a paper.

It is generally inappropriate to raise them in later review rounds if they already existed in the first draft submitted. In most cases, new uncorrectable problems or new major concerns raised in later reviews should only apply to changes in a paper that have emerged through the authors' revision work. Whether or not you are an expert in the subject discussed, you should understand the paper's content. If you have some suggested revisions, these are usually appreciated by authors, but please don't feel obliged to rewrite the manuscript.