Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2205.14270v1

Refereeing plays a crucial role in the publication of astronomical research, yet many professional astronomers lack formal training on how to effectively referee a manuscript. This article aims to provide early career researchers with guidance and best practices for refereeing. The authors emphasize the importance of clear and actionable feedback, as this allows the authors to respond effectively. The article discusses the challenges of recommending rejection compared to revision and resubmission. When rejecting a manuscript, referees should write a clear and kind note to the authors, explaining the shortcomings of the paper and providing strong evidence supporting their claim that it is not suitable for publication. While this note does not need to be exhaustive, it should specify critical flaws. The difficulty lies in delivering constructive criticism in a kind manner, which should be the goal. Feedback that is not constructive can be included in the confidential response to the editor. To frame their final report, referees are advised to begin by explicitly describing the strengths, aims, and results of the manuscript. This sets a positive tone for constructive criticism while demonstrating an understanding of the authors' research goals. By summarizing both strengths and weaknesses instead of solely focusing on shortcomings, referees communicate fairness. It is also recommended to use "the manuscript" instead of personal pronouns when providing feedback to maintain neutrality. Feedback should be organized using a commonly used template: stating the aims and key results of the manuscript; summarizing its strengths; providing constructive feedback or assessment; listing major weaknesses such as methodological issues or overstated results; and listing minor weaknesses like missing references or figure formatting issues. Referees should clearly articulate their feedback by referring to specific sections and line numbers where applicable, as well as providing sufficient publication information or links for easy reference retrieval. Before submitting their report, referees are encouraged to edit their first draft for tone since emails can often come across as harsher than intended. The aim is polite discussion with constructive criticism and clear actionable items while maintaining courtesy without compromising honesty. The article concludes by emphasizing the important role referees play in evaluating new research and providing feedback to ensure clear presentation and appropriate framing. Referees should strive to provide reports that they themselves would appreciate receiving – fair, kind, and actionable assessments of the research. In addition to these considerations, the article provides a list of questions for referees to consider when assessing manuscripts.

• - Refereeing plays a crucial role in the publication of astronomical research
• - Many professional astronomers lack formal training on how to effectively referee a manuscript
• - The article aims to provide early career researchers with guidance and best practices for refereeing
• - Clear and actionable feedback is emphasized as important for effective response from authors
• - Challenges of recommending rejection compared to revision and resubmission are discussed
• - Referees should write a clear and kind note when rejecting a manuscript, explaining the shortcomings and providing strong evidence supporting their claim
• - Constructive criticism should be delivered in a kind manner, while non-constructive feedback can be included in the confidential response to the editor
• - Referees are advised to begin their final report by explicitly describing the strengths, aims, and results of the manuscript to set a positive tone for constructive criticism
• - Using "the manuscript" instead of personal pronouns is recommended when providing feedback to maintain neutrality
• - Feedback should be organized using a commonly used template: stating aims and key results, summarizing strengths, providing constructive feedback or assessment, listing major weaknesses, listing minor weaknesses
• - Specific sections and line numbers should be referred to when giving feedback, along with sufficient publication information or links for easy reference retrieval
• - Referees should edit their first draft for tone before submitting their report to ensure polite discussion with constructive criticism while maintaining courtesy without compromising honesty
• - The important role referees play in evaluating new research and providing feedback is emphasized
• - Referees should strive to provide reports that they themselves would appreciate receiving – fair, kind, and actionable assessments of the research

Refereeing means evaluating and giving feedback on research papers. Astronomers are scientists who study space, but some of them don't know how to referee papers well. An article wants to help young researchers learn how to referee properly. It says that it's important for referees to give clear and helpful feedback to the authors of the papers. The article also talks about the challenges of deciding whether a paper should be rejected or revised. Referees should write a nice note when rejecting a paper, explaining why they didn't like it. They should also give constructive criticism in a kind way. Referees are advised to start their report by saying what they liked about the paper before giving suggestions for improvement. They should use "the manuscript" instead of saying "you" or "your" when giving feedback so that it sounds fair and neutral. Feedback should be organized using a template, and referees should mention specific parts of the paper when giving feedback. Before submitting their report, referees should check if their tone is polite and if they have been kind while still being honest. The article says that referees have an important job in evaluating new research and helping scientists improve their work." Definitions- Refereeing: Evaluating and giving feedback on research papers. - Astronomers: Scientists who study space. - Manuscript: A written document or paper. - Constructive criticism: Helpful suggestions for improvement. - Neutrality: Being fair and unbiased. - Template: A pre-made format or structure

Refereeing Astronomical Research: Guidance and Best Practices for Early Career Researchers

The publication of astronomical research relies heavily on the refereeing process, yet many professional astronomers lack formal training in how to effectively referee a manuscript. This article aims to provide early career researchers with guidance and best practices for refereeing. Referees play an important role in evaluating new research and providing feedback to ensure clear presentation and appropriate framing. The authors emphasize the importance of clear and actionable feedback, as this allows the authors to respond effectively.

Recommending Rejection vs Revision & Resubmission

When recommending rejection of a manuscript, referees should write a clear and kind note to the authors, explaining the shortcomings of the paper and providing strong evidence supporting their claim that it is not suitable for publication. While this note does not need to be exhaustive, it should specify critical flaws. The difficulty lies in delivering constructive criticism in a kind manner, which should be the goal. Feedback that is not constructive can be included in the confidential response to the editor.

Providing Constructive Criticism

To frame their final report, referees are advised to begin by explicitly describing the strengths, aims, and results of the manuscript. This sets a positive tone for constructive criticism while demonstrating an understanding of the authors' research goals. By summarizing both strengths and weaknesses instead of solely focusing on shortcomings, referees communicate fairness. It is also recommended to use "the manuscript" instead of personal pronouns when providing feedback to maintain neutrality. Feedback should be organized using a commonly used template: stating the aims and key results of the manuscript; summarizing its strengths; providing constructive feedback or assessment; listing major weaknesses such as methodological issues or overstated results; and listing minor weaknesses like missing references or figure formatting issues. Referees should clearly articulate their feedback by referring to specific sections and line numbers where applicable, as well as providing sufficient publication information or links for easy reference retrieval. Before submitting their report, referees are encouraged to edit their first draft for tone since emails can often come across as harsher than intended – polite discussion with constructive criticism is key!

Questions For Referees To Consider When Assessing Manuscripts

The article concludes by emphasizing again that referees play an important role in evaluating new research through fair assessments with kindness at heart without compromising honesty – something they would appreciate receiving themselves if they were on either side! In addition to these considerations outlined above when refereeing manuscripts from early career researchers (ECRs), here are some questions ECRs may consider when assessing manuscripts: - Is there sufficient evidence provided? Are any claims backed up by data? - Does each section flow logically? Are there any gaps between sections? - Is there enough detail given about methodology/experiments/observations? - Are all relevant references cited appropriately? - Do figures have captions that explain what’s being shown clearly? By considering these questions during review process along with following best practices outlined above will help ECRs become more effective reviewers who can provide helpful advice while maintaining courtesy towards authors whose work they evaluate!