That's a great answer, Twilight, I should start doing that!
This is a tough one. Is generally hard, but I think there is the added component of status difference here.
For one thing, it's important to stay positive. Start with something positive. There's got to be something positive in there. Then if you have critical comments, be sure to focus on those as traits of the paper, not the author. Example: "I thought this section may be easier to understand if it included a description of x." as opposed to "You shouldn't have said this here, you should say y."
I think catching typos or grammatical errors is certainly helpful and you're right that it shows you read the paper. Regarding content, I would want to know whether my argument makes sense. I would want to know if the reader finds the evidence convincing and if the analyses are clear to follow and understand. I'd also definitely want to know if I missed some obvious related literature that I should be citing.
If you get this type of a request about a paper that has already been published and especially if it's from someone you don't know that well then I highly recommend staying positive. Also, I always find it poor form when a person has nothing else to say except that you forgot to cite the ten related pieces that they have written in the area.
--
Posted by Orange Ina to academicsecret at 11/04/2006 11:25:54 PM
