Now, I know most of the journals are providing guides for reviewers, among other guides; however, these guides are too formal, and they don’t contain real advice.
Combining all these reasons, I decided to write down those points that I recognized during this time and put them all together to form some informal guidelines from my experience.
Second, you know what others do in research, hence, the review broadens your scope. I got many certificates, appreciations, and awards for my reviews and feedbacks for those papers I reviewed.
Third, I see this review process as a public service. I have also served as an Editorial board member for some journals, like Applied Soft Computing, by Elsevier (I. Over these years, my experience in the review has been improved gradually.
Now, I can confirm that my first review in 2011 is not like my review a few days ago.
Over the time, you become more stable and able to give wise advice.The student who submitted this paper last semester earned a 100 on his critique. A succint summary is provided in the first paragraph.This paper would have been even better if the student had added a sentence or two about the results of the study.In fact, while I’m trying my best in this process, sometimes, as an academic, I’m suffering from “bad” review on my papers.Of course, by “bad” review I don’t mean that they reject or ask for a revision, but because the reviewer (sometimes the associated editors also) does not know to criticize or give feedback in principle.A MANOVA was used to analyze the data for differences between male and female coaches with regard to leadership behaviors.This is not consistent with the type of data collected.This scale is used to measure six leadership behaviors: training and instruction, democratic, autocratic, social support, positive feedback, and situational consideration.The scale uses 60 statements, which were preceded by In coaching, I: A Likert scale was then given for each statement: 1 = never; 2 = seldom; 3 = occasionally; 4 = often; and 5 = always. Scales were administered in a number of environmental settings: classrooms, gymnasiums, practice fields, and offices.Ecological and population generalizability were discussed. The student spoke at length on threats to internal validity.Following the information on threats to internal validity, the student provided suggestions regarding how these threats could have been dealt with. Not only does the student know what the weakness of the study are, he provides ways the study could have been improved. Investigating leadership, gender, and coaching level using the Revised Leadership for Sport Scale. The purpose of the study was to determine possible differences in leadership behaviors, using the Revised Leadership for Sport Scale (RLSS), between male and female coaches and among different coaching levels. The first hypothesis was that male and female coaches would respond differently to the RLSS in overall leadership behaviors.