Prepare for your exams
Get points
Guidelines and tips

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips

Sell on Docsity

Log in Sign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search Store documents

The best documents sold by students who completed their studies

Search through all study resources

Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents

20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions

5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points

Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

University Rankings

Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

From our blog

Exams and Study

Go to the blog

Editing Guidelines for eSharp Journal Submissions, Summaries of Geometry

The Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS)Geometry

Detailed instructions and guidelines for editorial members of the esharp journal. It covers the process of reviewing and providing feedback on submissions, including the use of microsoft word's 'comment' function for annotating articles, the structure and content of the feedback forms for authors and the editorial board, and the key criteria for evaluating the quality, originality, and engagement with the journal's theme. The document emphasizes the importance of providing constructive criticism to authors, while also highlighting the high standards esharp maintains in publishing only the best postgraduate research. It serves as a comprehensive reference for editorial members to ensure a robust and fair peer review process, ultimately leading to the publication of high-quality, impactful research.

Typology: Summaries

2022/2023

Uploaded on 02/12/2024

nicholson-percy 🇺🇸

1 document

1 / 8

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

Dear reviewer,

Welcome on board as an editorial member of eSharp!

Attached are details which will help you in the process of editing for eSharp,

allowing you to get the most out of the experience and to help you work with

us with regards to the requirements of the journal. These include:

1. Details of the ‘comment’ function in Microsoft Word

2. Evaluation and feedback form for authors

3. Evaluation and feedback form for the eSharp editorial board

4. eSharp’s style guide (under separate cover)

We place importance not only on the quality of submissions, but also in

relation to the originality of research a paper presents and how successfully

the paper engages with the theme of our current issue. We send each

submission to multiple reviewers to ensure firstly that the peer review

element is as robust as possible, and secondly that eSharp publishes only

the very best in postgraduate research.

The review process has three parts. Firstly, we ask you to annotate the

article using the comment function of Word. Secondly, there is a feedback

report we will forward to the author along with the annotated article.

Finally, there is a form which is for the eSharp Editorial Board in confidence

and which will communicate your overall decision to us. We ask you to try to

provide positive criticism, especially on the evaluation form intended for the

author. If you feel that a certain submission is lacking in quality, please do

tell us about it, but give the author something positive to work with too.

We would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have or to

assist you in any way possible. For questions directly related to the

submission you are editing, please contact the editor who sent you the work.

For more general enquiries, please feel free to contact us – and remember

that www.glasgow.ac.uk/esharp may have the information you are looking

for.

Thank you very much!

The eSharp Editorial Board

Partial preview of the text

Download Editing Guidelines for eSharp Journal Submissions and more Summaries Geometry in PDF only on Docsity!

Dear reviewer, Welcome on board as an editorial member of eSharp! Attached are details which will help you in the process of editing for eSharp , allowing you to get the most out of the experience and to help you work with us with regards to the requirements of the journal. These include:

Details of the ‘comment’ function in Microsoft Word
Evaluation and feedback form for authors
Evaluation and feedback form for the eSharp editorial board
eSharp ’s style guide (under separate cover) We place importance not only on the quality of submissions, but also in relation to the originality of research a paper presents and how successfully the paper engages with the theme of our current issue. We send each submission to multiple reviewers to ensure firstly that the peer review element is as robust as possible, and secondly that eSharp publishes only the very best in postgraduate research. The review process has three parts. Firstly, we ask you to annotate the article using the comment function of Word. Secondly, there is a feedback report we will forward to the author along with the annotated article. Finally, there is a form which is for the eSharp Editorial Board in confidence and which will communicate your overall decision to us. We ask you to try to provide positive criticism, especially on the evaluation form intended for the author. If you feel that a certain submission is lacking in quality, please do tell us about it, but give the author something positive to work with too. We would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have or to assist you in any way possible. For questions directly related to the submission you are editing, please contact the editor who sent you the work. For more general enquiries, please feel free to contact us – and remember that www.glasgow.ac.uk/esharp may have the information you are looking for. Thank you very much! The eSharp Editorial Board

The ‘Comment’ function in Microsoft Word

As all submissions will be sent by email and because you will be giving feedback electronically rather than in person, we would like to ask you to use Microsoft Word’s ‘Comment’ function to make editorial comments on the article. You are very welcome to print out the paper and make notes by hand, but we would ask you to type up your final comments using Word’s handy tool. This will enable us to easily collate two different documents, and to send unambiguous feedback to the author. Please note that we will send you protected documents , i.e. you will not be able to make any changes other than inserting comments. Please do not unprotect the document as this makes collating documents impossible, and significantly increases the workload for us as well as for the authors. For obvious reasons, we also want to keep the comments anonymous. Word will automatically assign a series of initials to your comments, as based on the name that was used when Word was first installed. If you would like to remain anonymous and change the initials, this can easily be done as follows: Click Tools on the taskbar , then Options , then select the User Information tab. Here you can manually change the initials as they appear with the comments. Please note that this will affect your initials in all Microsoft Office programs, so don't forget to change it back later! This is how to operate the comments function:

Select the word/phrase to be amended.
Click on insert on the tool bar.
Click on comment on the drop-down menu.
3 things will happen: a. The word / phrase will be highlighted (by coloured brackets or by a solid coloured highlight). b. A number [[Your Initials]1,2,3 etc.] will be inserted after it. c. A dialogue box will appear at the bottom of the screen (or at the side of the page if using Office XP onwards).
Type the comment you wish to make in the dialogue box.
Either click on close or click back into the text to continue editing with the box open. (The comment will be saved either way.)
Deleting the number [[Your Initial]1,2,3 etc.] from the text will remove the comment and numbering will adjust automatically (or you can right-click on the comment and choose ‘delete comment’ from the menu). Alternatively, clicking View on the taskbar , then Toolbars and then Reviewing will bring up an extra toolbar that you can move around, with all the buttons that you will need. An example of a piece of text marked up with the comments function is: There are now up to 150,000 people in britain earning more than ,100,000 a year. Success hard-earned and reward fairly- gained are essential to a successful society, and I for one salute the hard work and enterprise that has helped some people achieve wealth for themselves and their families. But what of the rest of Britain. By denying the existence of society, the Tories have delivered a society more divided than ever before. A soceity cannot be strong when 1 in 5 non pensioner households has nobody bringing in a wage. A society cannot be secure when a

Preparing feedback

Please use this as a guide to help you to provide useful feedback for the author. If there is anything we have not included, but which you think is important, please do not hesitate to mention it.

General points to remember when preparing your report:

Be positive in your criticism wherever possible. The idea is to point out ways to improve the article and support the author on their way to publication.
Don’t base your judgements on personal style; try to be objective. Stick to widely accepted concepts, rules and theories relevant to the subject matter rather than basing your criticism solely on personal opinion. When you make a comment, back it up with specific points from the text and use them to suggest ways to improve.
When it comes to broad issues of structure and argument, we would rather you gave advice for improvement than attempting to make those improvements yourself – this saves you time, and helps the authors improve their work.
However, for the same reason, be as comprehensive as you can in your feedback. The following checklist is designed to jog your mind and help you to analyse the paper effectively.
Please remember in any feedback for the author you should avoid alluding to any decision you choose to communicate to us.
And finally… We are interested in your opinion as a reliable authority in your area. By all means indicate anything you are uncertain of, but do give us your honest perception of the article in the board report.

Section One: Content

Does the article engage with the theme of the issue? If it doesn’t, then you will have grounds to reject the article outright.
Similarly, is the article an original piece of research (rather than a literature review or summary) and does it contribute to its field? eSharp only publishes original research, and falling short in this area is also an automatic reject.
Otherwise, is the argument in broad terms: i. interesting? ii. persuasive? iii. coherent? iv. cohesive? v. significant?
Does the paper adhere to an appropriate methodology? i. how does the author approach the issues? ii. is the approach appropriate for the subject matter? iii. is it consistently applied? iv. are key terms used consistently? v. is jargon clearly explained? vi. are empirical data/statistics used to back up the argument? vii. are tables and graphs clearly marked, well explained and used in an appropriate place in the argument? viii. is the empirical data used relevant to the subject matter and scientifically reliable?
How well are primary sources handled?

i. are quotes used effectively to back up points raised? ii. are they over-used and intrusive? iii. are they under-used, and replaced by paraphrasing and generalisations?

How is secondary material used? i. does the author show a knowledge of existing and up-to-date research in the field? ii. does the author rely too heavily on secondary material to the detriment of original thought?

Section Two: Style

Does the paper have a good overall structure? i. does the paper do what it sets out to do? ii. are answers found to the questions raised? iii. are empirical/statistical data well situated in the line of argument? iv. does it hang together as a coherent and self-contained piece of research? v. does it have a solid and well-supported conclusion and introduction? vi. do they relate well to the title of the paper?
Within that framework, is the thesis coherently expounded? i. do paragraphs follow each other in logical structure? ii. are they badly organised and difficult to follow? iii. are sentences clear and precise, or vague and inaccessible?
Is it generally well-written? i. does the author use an engaging style? ii. is an appropriate register used?

Section Three: Presentation

Does the paper adhere to the eSharp style guide, with particular reference to the: i. font size ii. typeface iii. spacing iv. headings v. indentation You do not need to correct these one-by-one; just tell the author to re-format the paper in accordance with the style guide.
Are the references in line with eSharp ’s style guide? i. are footnotes placed at the ends of sentences? ii. is the bibliography laid out correctly?
Are there major grammar, spelling and/or punctuation problems? For example, does it have correct: i. spelling ii. capitalisation iii. commas, colons and semi-colons iv. apostrophes v. dates and numerals vi. quotation marks vii. split infinitives

Comments for the Author

Article number:

Comments for the eSharp Board

Name of referee: Article number: Having written your report, please communicate your judgment to us using the following table. Please remember that a reject in either of the first two categories (contribution to research and engagement with the issue’s theme) should then result in the paper being rejected. Place an X in the box most in keeping with your opinion of the paper where: A Accept for publication without revision AM Accept subject to minor revision AS Accept subject to substantial revision R Reject A AM AS R Contribution to current research in its field Engagement with the theme of the current issue Content Consistent use of appropriate theoretical framework, analysis and methodology Handling of primary/source material Handling of secondary material Presentation of empirical data (if applicable) ‘Readability’ in terms of interest and style Style Overall structure of argument Clarity and coherence of argument Standard of academic English Presentation Referencing Formatting Spelling and punctuation Overall recommendation Comments (continue onto another page if necessary):