 Let's talk in a little bit more detail now about reviewing a research paper. There are certain aspects of a research paper that you expect to see in the manuscript, and let's go over what those are so that if you're reviewing a research paper you know exactly what to look for. First of all, the paper should begin with some introduction problem statement that sets the tone, the significance of the problem, why it's even important to study. A research paper must have a review of the literature section. I'm so surprised it is an editor of the number of research papers I receive for which there's absolutely no review of the literature. The review of the literature section really provides the reader with a synopsis of what is known about the topic, what is not known about the topic, and how this research fills the gap in the literature. So when you're looking at the review of the literature, it should be adequate, it should be up to date, it should be relevant, and it really should help the reader know how this research that's being reported fits into the body of literature. Next in the paper, after the review of the literature, there should be the purpose, the aims, and or the hypothesis for the study. And they should clearly flow from that literature search. They can be stated as hypotheses with a relationship, a direction, or as a null hypothesis. They could be stated simply as review questions or as research aims or research questions. Next is the method section. And here we want to have first to be assured that the research was approved by an institutional review board. No research paper can be published for which IRB approval has not been obtained. I can tell you as an editor I've had to return and reject research papers because the researcher never obtained the proper approval through their university or their institution. And the purpose of that approval is for the protection of the human rights of the subjects, the protection of those subjects. So do not even bother to submit a research paper if you cannot provide a statement in the paper that you had the institutional review board approval for your research. Next in the method section, you want the author to describe their sample. What was the inclusion criteria, the exclusion criteria? How were the sample obtained? As a reviewer, you need to make sure that the sampling method really is appropriate for the research question. Is the sample size adequate? Does it reflect the appropriate population? Next you'll critique the research design. Is the design the appropriate design to answer the research question? Is this really a pilot study or is this a regular research study? That should be clarified right from the start. In the design, the author should tell you about the variables that are being studied, the independent and dependent variables and any confounding variables. All of this should be laid out clearly in the method section. Also, data collection procedures should be clear. And if a reader would want to replicate the study, the collection process should be so clear that they would be able to replicate if needed. The next step in the review of the research article is to look at the instrument section of the paper. Are the instruments described adequately? The author should tell the reader the purpose of the instrument, the content, the type of instrument. Information should be provided about the reliability and validity of the instrument. It's important as a reviewer when you critique the paper that you assure that the instruments are appropriate to measure the variables in the research questions. The author needs to clearly describe how the instrument was administered to the subjects. Was it a survey? Was it an interview? Exactly what were the procedures done to administer the instrument to the subjects? Next is the data analysis section. In this section, you want to be sure that the appropriate statistical tests were used based on the level of measures and based on the variables that were being studied. The author should have set a level of significance for their study, and each table and figure that they provide in the paper should be clearly labeled, easy to follow, and correct and accurate. You want to be sure that the researcher and author have not violated any of the assumptions for the statistical tests that they used. Finally, the paper should conclude with a discussion section, and here's where I found as an editor that most of the problems arise. Let's say, for example, that the researcher told us that they had an adequate sample size. They were using instruments that were reliable and valid, but the results did not support the hypothesis. The researchers predicted that there would be a significant relationship between variables, but in reality, the results show there was no significant relationship at all. So the mistake I see authors making is in the discussion section, they pretend they found what they wanted to find. They write and say, well, if my sample had been bigger, I would have found what I wanted to find. If my instruments had been better, I really would have found that significant relationship. You can't do that in the discussion section. You have to discuss what you found. Why didn't you find a significant relationship? You must provide the reader with some explanation for your true findings, not an explanation for the findings you wished you had that you don't really have at all. So that is a major reason for rejection of research papers is when the discussion section does not flow from the results and doesn't match the results. Also, in the conclusion section of the paper, there should be a part that describes the limitations of the study and a part that describes areas for future research.