Estimating the probability of negative events Adam J.L Harris, Adam Corner, Ulrike Hahn

You are in the role of a reviewer in a fictitious peer-review process
Imagine that the manuscript was submitted for review to a journal (e.g., “Experimental Psychology”, “Journal of Behavioral Decision Making”, “Social Cognition”)

It is your job to indicate whether the manuscript should be published or not; and if you think it can be published in the particular journal, you need to indicate what needs to be improved; with this you are helping the editor and the researchers
indicate your recommendation and specify what needs to be done so that authors can improve their manuscript
Usually, recommendations are either:
a) Can be published as is (extremely rare!)
b) Revise & resubmit: minor revisions (rare)
Specify what needs to be revised
c) Revise & resubmit: major revisions
i.) Just the text
ii.) Text with additional analyses, or
iii.) Text with additional data / studies
d) Rejection (& wish good luck with the project; “could be submitted at a more specialised journal”)
Title Page
Date of submission, module, your name, your ID, reference of the reviewed paper
Page 2: Start of Actual Review
Max: 1250 words
Introduction with title & summary of findings (max: 1 page)
Your position (this is where you get most points)
Conclusion, including a recommendation



© 2020 All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer: for assistance purposes only. These custom papers should be used with proper reference.