Application Of Database Deployment For A Small Growing...

Unfortunately, different areas of the business got different pieces of technology to assist in that growth, and those pieces did not interact with each other. This became a burden for the Chief Financial and Technical Office, Luis Campuzano. Eventually, the company hired a third-party programmer to write a custom application that could interpret the data between the databases and allow FileMaker Pro software to query all of them at once (Rainer, 2012). Crabby Bill’s developed different databases to manage the different types of data that they were using. They had databases for financial information, keeping track of inventory, and others. This has the advantage that for someone to access the financial records, they only have to view†¦show more content†¦This is also good security since you can easily just not give those people managing inventory access to the financial database, whereas if they were stored in the same database, you would need to configure special permissions on the data, again requiring someone with greater knowledge of information systems than the typical business owner has. The problems for these multiple databases arise when you realize that part of your financial information has to do with your inventory. Getting this data out of one system and into another can be a daunting and time consuming task. This would likely require someone to manually extract, reorganize, and import the data, just as it did in the case of Crabby Bill’s. This is expensive, as it requires someone’s time to perform these actions. It is also time consuming because the whole process could be automated. In addition to these business reasons, there also are problems for the data itself. When keeping data in multiple databases you run into problems of data redundancy, when information extracted from one database is imported into another, you are keeping the same data repeatedly. This redundancy can also lead to inconsistencies, if the data is entered incorrectly into one of your databases or changed by one party that only has access to it on a single database and not on

Ways We Make You Fit Happen Everyday Essay - 784 Words

5 Ways to Make You Fit Happen Everyday Overview Keeping fit, a term so often used but one that few people bother to make use literally. Life is hard already and adding more health problems to life will make it worse. No one wants that. At least I know I don’t. A little change to your lifestyle can make life a lot easier, even if you are the kind of person that works in a construction site carrying bricks all day. Just 30 minutes or less in your 24 hours and you will be happier and healthier. How then can you achieve this, you may be asking. In this article we go through a couple of things that can help keeping fit every day. They include: 1. Walking or Cycling Walking is an effective way to stay fit. If you live close enough to work or school a good solution would be to start walking or cycling. It will only take you a few minutes and do you a lot of good as far as your health is concerned. Driving just a few meters or a kilometer may save you a few minutes but also take a few coins off your pocket. Why not take a walk or cycle. It actually has lots of benefits. 2. Hit The Gym or There are so many equipments in the gym to exercise with. Utilize the machines for cardio and weights, but be careful and never use a weight that is too heavy. Use smaller weights and you will find that you will progress through the weights very rapidly. There is a lot to learn in the gym. Learn strength training and muscle toning techniques from an instructor or professional. The gym isShow MoreRelatedCognitive Theories And Concepts That Have Resonated With Me1645 Words   |  7 PagesCognitive Psych and Me Through this course we have gone into depth with various theories and concepts that have resonated with me. I have truly enjoyed this course and getting a greater understanding of the cognitive process of the mind, and having a greater understanding of the complexity of the brain and how learning, and how memories can be altered in our mind. I have decided to go into depth with cognitive process of the brain, the top-down and bottom-up processing, and schemas and how it effectsRead MoreEveryday Use By Alice Walker959 Words   |  4 PagesMost stories convey a form of message or meaning, and the short stories Everyday Use by Alice Walker, and The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien are no different. Everyday Use tells the story between a mother and her two daughters, who are living two completely lifestyles. One who now lives a more â€Å"modern lifestyle† and the other who is still living traditionally like the mother. In The Things They Carried the author recites stor ies about the time he spent in the Vietnam War, he also goes on to talkRead MoreUnderstanding The Looking Glass Self1129 Words   |  5 Pageshuman, humans need a great deal of proficiency at taking account of others and forming relationships with them.† Sociology teaches humans where we connect to different groups as well as classifying them into these groups. These classifications that we are assigned include, economic status level, education, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. By doing so, we perceive the view of ourselves and others in the world. The Looking Glass-Self allows us to see our interactions with others as well as what theyRead MoreMeret Oppenheim : A Woman Before Her Time?1695 Words   |  7 PagesOppenheim: A woman before her time? Imagine being in a museum on a casual day, the next exhibition happens to be just a normal saucer, spoon and dish covered in fur. What emotions would this arouse? Meret Oppenheim was born in 1913, leaving us in 1985 in accordance with Mansen. She was a very interesting artist of this time who expressed herself and ideas through the Surrealism Movement in more ways than one. Oppenheim used many materials in her pieces that were unique, touchable items. The artistRead MoreAdvantages And Disadvantages Of Being Tall893 Words   |  4 Pagesyears. Now I think that being tall is normal. It makes me who I am today. I am 5’11 and a half now but I have always been taller than everyone. At birth I was twenty-three inches long. I get my height from my dad, he was 6’3. My mom is only 5’7,of course I am taller than her now. Although being tall has its advantages, such as being able to see in the back of the class, it also has many disadvantages. Those disadvantages are not being able to fit my clothes properly, people always asking so manyRead MoreEssay Signs of Life in the USA841 Words   |  4 PagesStephen Garrett’s â€Å"Why We Love TV’s Anti-heroes† In the reading, â€Å"Why We Love TV’s Anti-heroes† by Stephen Garrett, he points out that anti-heroes are becoming more popular than the traditional hero. Garrett states, â€Å"the word hero is abused in the news, the sports reports, and even in conversation† (318). For example tabloids recognize someone who battles a drug addiction and overcomes it or a substitute kicker for the football game kick the winning field goal (318). You see he argues that traditionalRead MoreThe Positive Effects Of Fashion On Your Life1364 Words   |  6 Pagescollege students that want to make their daily lives easier and have somewhat of an interest in fashion. I start off my blog post by asking the readers a question and making a statement that they would not think is true. After that, I go into my specifies where I talk about the three main aspects of my statement, fitting in, authority, and comfort. Each of these topics have their own claims which I use research to back up. I also would include photos which basically gives you a visual example of eachRead MoreSarah s Key By Tatiana De Rosnay1736 Words   |  7 Pagesgood job showing all of the perspectives of what had happened and she does not put anyone down in anyway. The book Sarah Key’s is written in a way that its feat in how two families try to find a way to escape the camps and relocate themselves. The author also uses an interesting pathos in her novel she does a great job bring up suspense you know what will happen next. The book Sarah’s Key varies between the two divided lives of Sarah and Julia. One of the main themes Tatiana de Rosnay uses in the bookRead MoreSarah s Key By Tatiana De Rosnay1745 Words   |  7 Pagesgood job showing all of the perspectives of what had happened and she does not put anyone down in anyway. The book Sarah Key’s is written in a way that its feat in how two families try to find a way to escape the camps and relocate themselves. The author also uses an interesting pathos in her novel she does a great job bring up suspense you know what will happen next. The book Sarah’s Key varies between the two divided lives of Sarah and Julia. One of the main themes Tatiana de Rosnay uses in the bookRead MoreDisability Essay examples589 Words   |  3 Pagesthe physical limitations that flow from actual impairment. Society makes generalizations and stereotypes about the disabled and the disease stricken. Society as a whole has the belief that they are less of a person because of something they cannot change about themselves. Society places the disabled in a category by themselves, as an outcast from modern civilization. We think that if we include the disables in everyday activities we could all one day become the same. Those who are disabled but are

Mbazappos the Company That Is Powered by Customer Service

The Company That is Powered to WOW Founded in 1999, Zappos started as site that only sold shoes. The idea for the site came to founder Nick Swinmurn in his quest to find the right shoe. Swinmurn couldn’t find exactly what he was looking for in the different stores he visited. The stores either didn’t have his size or the right style and color. After spending hours searching and getting no where he went home shoeless. Swinmurn attempted to shop online for the shoes he wanted. He couldn’t believe there wasn’t a site that offered a huge variety of shoes. This inspired him to create a site that he envisioned that had a big selection of different size, styles and colors of name brand shoes (â€Å"In The Beginning - Let There Be Shoes†, n.d.).†¦show more content†¦Hsieh creates and allows fun to take the stress that comes with customer service positions. Even though Zappos doesn’t have the typical working environment, a leader should still stress the important in taking the job seriously to ensure customer retention and great service. If there was decline in the demand of the products Zappos offered occurred at this very moment I think the culture will change just a little. I foresee the leaders of the company trying to hold on to the original culture but the stress of the decline impacting the fun and free work atmosphere. Some leaders will begin to focus solely on the operations of the company and the how to continue to make the company profitable (Schermerhorn, Osborn, Uhi-Bien, Hunt, 2012) .Slowly they will all become transactional Leaders rather than transformational leaders focusing on money and not people. The employee would provide wow service and have fun. All that would slowly phase out once the stress from the leaders trickle down to the other staff members. These actions will eventually result in the sales declining and the company being in a bad place financially. If the company response quickly to the decline in the demand the culture c ould continue to provide expectable wow service to the customer and a great working environment to the employees. In order for this occur the company would have to keep open communication among the leaders and the employees. Zappos would need

Mr. Big, The Whore Of Mensa, And The Kuglemass Episode

A Discussion of Satire, Humor, and Absurdity in Woody Allen’s â€Å"Mr. Big,† â€Å"The Whore of Mensa,† and â€Å"The Kuglemass Episode† â€Å"It is my only regret in life that I am not someone else† (Good Reads, 2017). This famous Woody Allen quote reflects a reason why he may love to write: so he can be someone else for a short while. To top it off Allen is an expert at using satire, humor and absurdity to entertain his audience. As one best storytellers of the twenty first century, he has a way of reaching his audience by taking a worn-out archetype and by applying an absurdity filter, he allows the audience to see a difficult idea in a whole new light. In his short stories, â€Å"Mr. Big,† â€Å"The Whore of Mensa,† and â€Å"The Kuglemass Episode,† he imparts†¦show more content†¦In each story the author uses satire, humor, or absurdity to introduce the audience to a subject that is seemingly taboo or unrealistic. Doing this allows the reader to explore a concept they may be uncomfortable exploring any other way. Now, consider what Allen might have been saying in â€Å"Mr. Big.† The story begins with Heather Butkiss seeking a private investigator to help her find God. She is smart and sexy, and Kaiser Lupowitz is a lump of clay in her hands. Kaiser is amused, bored, and attracted; nevertheless, he is led by Ms. Butkiss through a maze of lies. Turns out, her name is Ellen Shepard. She is a professor who is simply a scorned lover. After finding out the truth of her quest, to prove the existence of God, Lupowitz quickly dismisses her, shoots her and before she dies, explains the true manifestation of the universe, as if he had the answer all along: â€Å"The manifestation of the universe as a complex idea unto itself as opposed to being in or outside the true Being of itself is inherently a conceptual nothingness or Nothingness in relation to any abstract form of existing or to exist or having existed in perpetuity and not subject to laws of physicality or motion or ideas relating to non -matter or the lack of objective Being or subjective otherness (Allen, http://www.wepsite.de/Mr._Big,Woody_Allen.htm, n.d.). The scene is vivid and hilarious. Allen takes a decisive topic, like faith in God and by using satire,

Paper Evaluation Free Essays

string(37) " prose is usually highly compressed\." How to Read a Scientific Paper BIOC/MCB 568 — Fall 2010 John W. Little and Roy Parker–University of Arizona Back to 568 home page Translation into Belorussian The main purpose of a scientific paper is to report new results, usually experimental, and to relate these results to previous knowledge in the field. Papers are one of the most important ways that we communicate with one another. We will write a custom essay sample on Paper Evaluation or any similar topic only for you Order Now In understanding how to read a paper, we need to start at the beginning with a few preliminaries. We then address the main questions that will enable you to understand and evaluate the paper. . How are papers organized? 2. How do I prepare to read a paper, particularly in an area not so familiar to me? 3. What difficulties can I expect? 4. How do I understand and evaluate  the contents of the paper? 1. Organization of a paper In most scientific journals, scientific papers follow a standard format. They are divided into several sections, and each section serves a specific purpose in the paper. We first describe the standard format, then some variations on that format. A paper begins with a short  Summary  or  Abstract. Generally, it gives a brief background to the topic; describes concisely the major findings of the paper; and relates these findings to the field of study. As will be seen, this logical order is also that of the paper as a whole. The next section of the paper is the  Introduction. In many journals this section is not given a title. As its name implies, this section presents the background knowledge necessary for the reader to understand why the findings of the paper are an advance on the knowledge in the field. Typically, the Introduction describes first the accepted state of knowledge in a specialized field; then it focuses more specifically on a particular aspect, usually describing a finding or set of findings that led directly to the work described in the paper. If the authors are testing a hypothesis, the source of that hypothesis is spelled out, findings are given with which it is consistent, and one or more predictions are given. In many papers, one or several major conclusions of the paper are presented at the end of this section, so that the reader knows the major answers to the questions just posed. Papers more descriptive or comparative in nature may begin with an introduction to an area which interests the authors, or the need for a broader database. The next section of most papers is the  Materials and Methods. In some journals this section is the last one. Its purpose is to describe the materials used in the experiments and the methods by which the experiments were carried out. In principle, this description should be detailed enough to allow other researchers to replicate the work. In practice, these descriptions are often highly compressed, and they often refer back to previous papers by the authors. The third section is usually  Results. This section describes the experiments and the reasons they were done. Generally, the logic of the Results section follows directly from that of the Introduction. That is, the Introduction poses the questions addressed in the early part of Results. Beyond this point, the organization of Results differs from one paper to another. In some papers, the results are presented without extensive discussion, which is reserved for the following section. This is appropriate when the data in the early parts do not need to be interpreted extensively to understand why the later experiments were done. In other papers, results are given, and then they are interpreted, perhaps taken together with other findings not in the paper, so as to give the logical basis for later experiments. The fourth section is the  Discussion. This section serves several purposes. First, the data in the paper are interpreted; that is, they are analyzed to show what the authors believe the data show. Any limitations to the interpretations should be acknowledged, and fact should clearly be separated from speculation. Second, the findings of the paper are related to other findings in the field. This serves to show how the findings contribute to knowledge, or correct the errors of previous work. As stated, some of these logical arguments are often found in the Results when it is necessary to clarify why later experiments were carried out. Although you might argue that in this case the discussion material should be presented in the Introduction, more often you cannot grasp its significance until the first part of Results is given. Finally, papers usually have a short  Acknowledgements  section, in which various contributions of other workers are recognized, followed by a  Reference  list giving references to papers and other works cited in the text. Papers also contain several  Figures  and  Tables. These contain data described in the paper. The figures and tables also have legends, whose purpose is to give details of the particular experiment or experiments shown there. Typically, if a procedure is used only once in a paper, these details are described in Materials and Methods, and the Figure or Table legend refers back to that description. If a procedure is used repeatedly, however, a general description is given in Materials and Methods, and the details for a particular experiment are given in the Table or Figure legend. Variations on the organization of a paper In most scientific journals, the above format is followed. Occasionally, the Results and Discussion are combined, in cases in which the data need extensive discussion to allow the reader to follow the train of logic developed in the course of the research. As stated, in some journals, Materials and Methods follows the Discussion. In certain older papers, the Summary was given at the end of the paper. The formats for two widely-read journals,  Science  and  Nature, differ markedly from the above outline. These journals reach a wide audience, and many authors wish to publish in them; accordingly, the space limitations on the papers are severe, and the prose is usually highly compressed. You read "Paper Evaluation" in category "Papers" In both journals, there are no discrete sections, except for a short abstract and a reference list. In  Science, the abstract is self-contained; in  Nature, the abstract also serves as a brief introduction to the paper. Experimental details are usually given either in endnotes (for  Science) or Figure and Table legends and a short Methods section (in  Nature). Authors often try to circumvent length limitations by putting as much material as possible in these places. In addition, an increasingly common practice is to put a substantial fraction of the less-important material, and much of the methodology, into Supplemental Data that can be accessed online. Many other journals also have length limitations, which similarly lead to a need for conciseness. For example, the  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences  (PNAS) has a six-page limit;  Cell  severely edits many papers to shorten them, and has a short word limit in the abstract; and so on. In response to the pressure to edit and make the paper concise, many authors choose to condense or, more typically, omit the logical connections that would make the flow of the paper easy. In addition, much of the background that would make the paper accessible to a wider audience is condensed or omitted, so that the less-informed reader has to consult a review article or previous papers to make sense of what the issues are and why they are important. Finally, again, authors often circumvent page limitations by putting crucial details into the Figure and Table legends, especially when (as in  PNAS) these are set in smaller type. Fortunately, the recent widespread practice of putting less-critical material into online supplemental material has lessened the pressure to compress content so drastically, but it is still a problem for older papers. Back to outline 2. Reading a scientific paper Although it is tempting to read the paper straight through as you would do with most text, it is more efficient to organize the way you read. Generally, you first read the Abstract in order to understand the major points of the work. The extent of background assumed by different authors, and allowed by the journal, also varies as just discussed. One extremely useful habit in reading a paper is to read the Title and the Abstract and, before going on, review in your mind what you know about the topic. This serves several purposes. First, it clarifies whether you in fact know enough background to appreciate the paper. If not, you might choose to read the background in a review or textbook, as appropriate. Second, it refreshes your memory about the topic. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it helps ou as the reader integrate the new information into your previous knowledge about the topic. That is, it is used as a part of the self-education process that any professional must continue throughout his/her career. If you are very familiar with the field, the Introduction can be skimmed or even skipped. As stated above, the logical flow of most papers goes straight from the Introduction to Results; accordingly, the pape r should be read in that way as well, skipping Materials and Methods and referring back to this section as needed to clarify what was actually done. A reader familiar with the field who is interested in a particular point given in the Abstract often skips directly to the relevant section of the Results, and from there to the Discussion for interpretation of the findings. This is only easy to do if the paper is organized properly. Codewords Many papers contain shorthand phrases that we might term ‘codewords’, since they have connotations that are generally not explicit. In many papers, not all the experimental data are shown, but referred to by â€Å"(data not shown)†. This is often for reasons of space; the practice is accepted when the authors have documented their competence to do the experiments properly (usually in previous papers). Two other codewords are â€Å"unpublished data† and â€Å"preliminary data†. The former can either mean that the data are not of publishable quality or that the work is part of a larger story that will one day be published. The latter means different things to different people, but one connotation is that the experiment was done only once. Back to outline 3. Difficulties in reading a paper Several difficulties confront the reader, particularly one who is not familiar with the field. As discussed above, it may be necessary to bring yourself up to speed before beginning a paper, no matter how well written it is. Be aware, however, that although some problems may lie in the reader, many are the fault of the writer. One major problem is that many papers are poorly written. Some scientists are poor writers. Many others do not enjoy writing, and do not take the time or effort to ensure that the prose is clear and logical. Also, the author is typically so familiar with the material that it is difficult to step back and see it from the point of view of a reader not familiar with the topic and for whom the paper is just another of a large stack of papers that need to be read. Bad writing has several consequences for the reader. First, the logical connections are often left out. Instead of saying why an experiment was done, or what ideas were being tested, the experiment is simply described. Second, papers are often cluttered with a great deal of jargon. Third, the authors often do not provide a clear road-map through the paper; side issues and fine points are given equal air time with the main logical thread, and the reader loses this thread. In better writing, these side issues are relegated to Figure legends, Materials and Methods, or online Supplemental Material, or else clearly identified as side issues, so as not to distract the reader. Another major difficulty arises when the reader seeks to understand just what the experiment was. All too often, authors refer back to previous papers; these refer in turn to previous papers in a long chain. Often that chain ends in a paper that describes several methods, and it is unclear which was used. Or the chain ends in a journal with severe space limitations, and the description is so compressed as to be unclear. More often, the descriptions are simply not well-written, so that it is ambiguous what was done. Other difficulties arise when the authors are uncritical about their experiments; if they firmly believe a particular model, they may not be open-minded about other possibilities. These may not be tested experimentally, and may even go unmentioned in the Discussion. Still another, related problem is that many authors do not clearly distinguish between fact and speculation, especially in the Discussion. This makes it difficult for the reader to know how well-established are the â€Å"facts† under discussion. One final problem arises from the sociology of science. Many authors are ambitious and wish to publish in trendy journals. As a consequence, they overstate the importance of their findings, or put a speculation into the title in a way that makes it sound like a well-established finding. Another example of this approach is the â€Å"Assertive Sentence Title†, which presents a major conclusion of the paper as a declarative sentence (such as â€Å"LexA is a repressor of the  recA  and  lexA  genes†). This trend is becoming prevalent; look at recent issues of  Cell  for examples. It’s not so bad when the assertive sentence is well-documented (as it was in the example given), but all too often the assertive sentence is nothing more than a speculation, and the hasty reader may well conclude that the issue is settled when it isn’t. These last factors represent the public relations side of a competitive field. This behavior is understandable, if not praiseworthy. But when the authors mislead the reader as to what is firmly established and what is speculation, it is hard, especially for the novice, to know what is settled and what is not. A careful evaluation is necessary, as we now discuss. Back to outline 4. Evaluating a paper A thorough understanding and evaluation of a paper involves answering several questions: a. What  questions  does the paper address? b. What are the main  conclusions  of the paper? . What  evidence  supports those conclusions? d. Do the data actually  support  the conclusions? e. What is the  quality  of the evidence? f. Why are the conclusions  important? a. What questions does the paper address? Before addressing this question, we need to be aware that research in biochemistry and molecular biology can be of several different types: |Type of research |Question ask ed: | |Descriptive |What is there? What do we see? | |Comparative |How does it compare to other organisms? Are our findings | | |general? | |Analytical |How does it work? What is the mechanism? | Descriptive  research often takes place in the early stages of our understanding of a system. We can’t formulate hypotheses about how a system works, or what its interconnections are, until we know what is there. Typical descriptive approaches in molecular biology are DNA sequencing and DNA microarray approaches. In biochemistry, one could regard x-ray crystallography as a descriptive endeavor. Comparative  research often takes place when we are asking how general a finding is. Is it specific to my particular organism, or is it broadly applicable? A typical comparative approach would be comparing the sequence of a gene from one organism with that from the other organisms in which that gene is found. One example of this is the observation that the actin genes from humans and budding yeast are 89% identical and 96% similar. Analytical  research generally takes place when we know enough to begin formulating hypotheses about how a system works, about how the parts are interconnected, and what the causal connections are. A typical analytical approach would be to devise two (or more) alternative hypotheses about how a system operates. These hypotheses would all be consistent with current knowledge about the system. Ideally, the approach would devise a set of experiments todistinguish among these hypotheses. A classic example is the Meselson-Stahl experiment. Of course, many papers are a combination of these approaches. For instance, researchers might sequence a gene from their model organism; compare its sequence to homologous genes from other organisms; use this comparison to devise a hypothesis for the function of the gene product; and test this hypothesis by making a site-directed change in the gene and asking how that affects the phenotype of the organism and/or the biochemical function of the gene product. Being aware that not all papers have the same approach can orient you towards recognizing the major questions that a paper addresses. What are these questions? In a well-written paper, as described above, the Introduction generally goes from the general to the specific, eventually framing a question or set of questions. This is a good starting place. In addition, the results of experiments usually raise additional questions, which the authors may attempt to answer. These questions usually become evident only in the Results section. Back to Evaluating a paper b. What are the main conclusions of the paper? This question can often be answered in a preliminary way by studying the abstract of the paper. Here the authors highlight what they think are the key points. This is not enough, because abstracts often have severe space constraints, but it can serve as a starting point. Still, you need to read the paper with this question in mind. Back to Evaluating a paper c. What evidence supports those conclusions? Generally, you can get a pretty good idea about this from the Results section. The description of the findings points to the relevant tables and figures. This is easiest when there is one primary experiment to support a point. However, it is often the case that several different experiments or approaches combine to support a particular conclusion. For example, the first experiment might have several possible interpretations, and the later ones are designed to distinguish among these. In the ideal case, the Discussion begins with a section of the form â€Å"Three lines of evidence provide support for the conclusion that†¦ First, †¦ Second,†¦ etc. † However, difficulties can arise when the paper is poorly written (see above). The authors often do not present a concise summary of this type, leaving you to make it yourself. A skeptic might argue that in such cases the logical structure of the argument is weak and is omitted on purpose! In any case, you need to be sure that you understand the relationship between the data and the conclusions. Back to Evaluating a paper d. Do the data actually support the conclusions? One major advantage of doing this is that it helps you to evaluate whether the conclusion is sound. If we assume for the moment that the data are believable (see next section), it still might be the case that the data do not actually support the conclusion the authors wish to reach. There are at least two different ways this can happen: i. The logical connection between the data and the interpretation is not sound ii. There might be other interpretations that might be consistent with the data. One important aspect to look for is whether the authors take multiple approaches to answering a question. Do they have multiple lines of evidence, from different directions, supporting their conclusions? If there is only one line of evidence, it is more likely that it could be interpreted in a different way; multiple approaches make the argument more persuasive. Another thing to look for is implicit or hidden assumptions used by the authors in interpreting their data. This can be hard to do, unless you understand the field thoroughly. Back to Evaluating a paper e. What is the quality of that evidence? This is the hardest question to answer, for novices and experts alike. At the same time, it is one of the most important skills to learn as a young scientist. It involves a major reorientation from being a relatively passive consumer of information and ideas to an active producer and critical evaluator of them. This is not easy and takes years to master. Beginning scientists often wonder, â€Å"Who am I to question these authorities? After all the paper was published in a top journal, so the authors must have a high standing, and the work must have received a critical review by experts. † Unfortunately, that’s not always the case. In any case, developing your ability to evaluate evidence is one of the hardest and most important aspects of learning to be a critical scientist and reader. How can you evaluate the evidence? First, you need to understand thoroughly the methods used in the experiments. Often these are described poorly or not at all (see  above). The details are often missing, but more importantly the authors usually assume that the reader has a general knowledge of common methods in the field (such as immunoblotting, cloning, genetic methods, or DNase I footprinting). If you lack this knowledge, as discussed  above  you have to make the extra effort to inform yourself about the basic methodology before you can evaluate the data. Sometimes you have to trace back the details of the methods if they are important. The increasing availability of journals on the Web has made this easier by obviating the need to find a hard-copy issue,  e. . in the library. A  comprehensive listing of journals  relevant to this course, developed by the Science Library, allows access to most of the listed volumes from any computer at the University; a  second list  at the Arizona Health Sciences Library includes some other journals, again from University computers. Second,  you need to know the  limitations  of the methodology. E very method has limitations, and if the experiments are not done correctly they can’t be interpreted. For instance, an immunoblot is not a very quantitative method. Moreover, in a certain range of protein the signal increases (that is, the signal is at least roughly â€Å"linear†), but above a certain amount of protein the signal no longer increases. Therefore, to use this method correctly one needs a standard curve that shows that the experimental lanes are in a linear range. Often, the authors will not show this standard curve, but they should state that such curves were done. If you don’t see such an assertion, it could of course result from bad writing, but it might also not have been done. If it wasn’t done, a dark band might mean â€Å"there is this much protein or an indefinite amount more†. Third, importantly, you need to distinguish between what the data show and what the authors  say  they show. The latter is really an interpretation on the authors’ part, though it is generally not stated to be an interpretation. Papers usually state something like â€Å"the data in Fig. x show that †¦ â€Å". This is the authors’ interpretation of the data. Do you interpret it the same way? You need to look carefully at the data to ensure that they really do show what the authors say they do. You can only do this effectively if you understand the methods and their limitations. Fourth, it is often helpful to look at the original journal, or its electronic counterpart, instead of a photocopy. Particularly for half-tone figures such as photos of gels or autoradiograms, the contrast is distorted, usually increased, by photocopying, so that the data are misrepresented. Fifth, you should ask if the proper controls are present. Controls tell us that nature is behaving the way we expect it to under the conditions of the experiment (seehere  for more details). If the controls are missing, it is harder to be confident that the results really show what is happening in the experiment. You should try to develop the habit of asking â€Å"where are the controls? † and looking for them. Back to Evaluating a paper f. Why are the conclusions important? Do the conclusions make a significant advance in our knowledge? Do they lead to new insights, or even new research directions? Again, answering these questions requires that you understand the field relatively well. Back to Evaluating a paper Back to outline Back to 568 home page [pic] BIOC/MCB 568 — University of Arizona http://www. biochem. arizona. edu/classes/bioc568/bioc568. htm Last modified August 18, 2010 All contents copyright  © 2010. All rights reserved. How to review a scientific paper? |Contents | |  [hide] | |1  Why me? | |2  Am I a suitable reviewer? | |3  How does the review process work? | |4  How do I start? | |5  What to look for? | |6  How to put it in words? | |7  What to recommend? | |8  How to approach a revision? | |9  I’ve done all this work†¦ what do I get out of it? | |10  Further reading | [edit]Why me? You may be surprised that you may be asked as a peer-reviewer for an authorative journal when you yourself are still a PhD-student and with a limited number of published articles. This does not make you an inappropriate reviewer. You may have been ‘found’ in several ways: 1. When submitting a paper, you will often be asked to fill out contact details and area’s of expertise and/or keywords. Journal editors can screen the journal database for potential reviewers with research expertise matching that of the paper. 2. You could have been requested as a reviewer by the submitting authors 3. You could have been suggested as a reviewer by another reviewer (when declining an invitation to review a paper, one is usually asked to suggest an alternative reviewer) or an editor may know you personally. 4. You could have been found based on previous articles you’ve published that were referenced in the submitted manuscript, or simply found on pubmed. [edit]Am I a suitable reviewer? If you seriously question your ability to review the manuscript, you should decline the review invitation. This may be because you are not familiar with the subject, because you are biased towards the submitted work (e. g. ecause of personal relations with the authors, or because the paper is highly competitive with your own work), or just because you feel too inexperienced. However, in the latter case, you may consider accepting the review and asking a more experienced colleague to assist you with the review. Also, it is an excellent way to learn how to peer-review an article by first assistin g colleague in their reviews. Please always keep confidentiality in mind. Contact the editor if you have any questions. [edit]How does the review process work? 1. The editor and ultimately editorial board decide on the fate of the manuscript. . After a manuscript is assigned to an editor, it is read by the editor and he or she decides if the paper is sent out for peer-review. Occasionally, a triage review is commissioned, where an external reviewer is asked for an opinion if the paper should be sent out for full review. 3. Reviewers are invited and receive an abstract of the manuscript. Usually, 2 or more reviewers are sought. 4. After acceptance of the invitation for review, reviewers receive the full manuscript. If a reviewer then discovers that he or she is not suitable after all, the invitation for review can still be declined. 5. The reviewers write their reviews. Usually, this consists of a) filling out a form with scores (for novelty, technical excellence, appropriateness of manuscript preparation, etcetera), b) comments to the authors, and c) comments to the editor. Typically, an advice regarding overall priority for publication and/or acceptance is asked for, which is blinded to the authors. 6. After the editor has received the reviewer comments, he may decide to commission another reviewer, particularly if reviewer opinions are contradictory or if there is a need for specific expertise, e. g. additional review by a statistical expert. . After all reviews have been completed, the editor and editorial board decide to either a. accept the manuscript, b. accept the manuscript after (minor) revision, c. reject the article, but invite to revise the manuscript, or d. reject the manuscript. 8. Note that an editor will generally reserve the right to edit your reviewer comments to the author. Over-enthusiastic com pliments may be removed if the editor eventually decides to reject the paper. Also, you may see that your comments the editor are also passed on to the authors if the editor feels this is appropriate. 9. If a manuscript is resubmitted after revision, it is usually resent to the original reviewers. [edit]How do I start? Before reading the manuscript, make sure you know the aims and scope of the journal. Read the manuscript and supplementary files for a first time, without spending too much time on details. Consider reading additional literature, such as relating articles by the same authors. Then re-read the manuscript in detail and try to follow the line of thought of the authors. Identify the hypothesis, key findings and assess if the (discussion of) the results adequately reflects back on the original hypothesis. Critically assess the methods and representation of data in the text, tables and figures. Draft a review. Re-read the manuscript and re-read you review. [edit]What to look for? Visit the journal’s website, where criteria for reviewers are commonly supplied. Also, see if there is a score-sheet as this will also tell you what the editors would like you to look for. As a general check-list, consider the following points (taken from the BMJ website): †¢ Is the paper important? †¢ Is the work original? Does the work add enough to what is already in the literature? †¢ Is there a clear message? Does the paper read well and make sense? †¢ Is this journal the right place for this paper? Scientific reliability: †¢ Abstract/summary — does it reflect accurately what the paper says? †¢ Research question — is it clearly defined and appropriately answered? †¢ Overall design of study — is it adequate? †¢ Participants studied   are they dequately described and their conditions defined? †¢ Methods — are they adequately described? For randomised trials: CONSORT Ethical? †¢ Results — does it answer the research question? Credible? Well presented? †¢ Usefulness of tables and figures? Is the quality good enough? Can some eliminated? Is the data correct in the tables? †¢ Interpretation and conclusions — are they warranted by and sufficiently derived from/focused on the data? Message clear? †¢ References — are they up to date and relevant? Any glaring omissions? [edit]How to put it in words? As a reviewer, it is your task to objectively assess the strengths and weaknesses in a manuscript, provide constructive criticism and list suggestions for improvement. It may help to organize your reviewer comments to the author as follows: – a brief summary of the findings in the article. This helps organize your own grasp on the data in the article. Also, it helps the associate editor and editorial board to understand the content of the manuscript. Finally, it shows the author that you have read and understood the manuscript. – consider giving a general comment on the article on e. g. novelty and overall impression of the data and manuscript preparation. -list major comments. Number them for clarity. Major comments are comments, questions and/or suggestions that are in your view essential points that need to be appropriately addressed for the manuscript to become acceptable for publication. list minor comments such as typographic errors or suggestions for additional non-essential data to be included. Also keep in mind: Be kind. Even a ‘bad’ paper has generally required substantial investment of time and effort by the authors. Do not be tempted by the reviewer anonymousity to make unkind remarks. Be fair. Try to be objectively critical. Do not hesi tate to identify flaws in the manuscript, but keep eye for balancing criticism with potential strengths of the manuscript, technical limitations and the nature of the journal. If you give criticism, also give a motivation, including literature references if applicable. Be concise. Be ‘action-able’. Providing practical suggestions for textual changes or additional experiments helps convey what you think would improve the manuscript better than simple criticism. [edit]What to recommend? You give advice to the editor regarding the manuscript and this advice generally includes an advice on how the paper should be handled. It is a misconception that reviewers decide if a paper is accepted: the editor and editorial board ultimately decide. This also means that it is essential to refrain from including an advice on acceptance or rejection of a paper in the review comments that are provided. Editors may edit your comments if you imply acceptance or rejection. Consider recommending a major revision if you feel the paper would become acceptable for publication if your suggestions are adequately addressed. If you feel that the manuscript would be insufficient for publication even after revision, e. g. based on limited novelty, rejection would be more appropriate. [edit]How to approach a revision? If a manuscript is returned to the authors with the invitation to resubmit after revision, you will commonly be asked to review the revised manuscript and author correspondence with replies to your comments. However, this is at the editor’s discretion. If you receive a revised manuscript, focus on the response to your own review and in principle limit yourself to the points you previously raised. See if the authors have satisfactorily addressed your comments. Check with your original comments to see if the authors have included all the points you raised. It is not good practice if you come up with new criticisms regarding points that you could have identified during your first assessment of the manuscript. Also, try to finish your re-evaluation with some priority as this is customary with resubmissions and will prevent excessive delay of anuscript publication. If you had numbered your major comments and had provided action-able suggestions, you will now appreciate the importance of doing so. [edit]I’ve done all this work†¦ what do I get out of it? Writing a good review takes costly time. However, there are several reasons why every researcher should write peer-reviews. First, for you as a researcher, you will find that participating in the reviewing process will increase the quality of your own work and likelihood of getting your articles accepted. You’re given an insider’s view of the reviewing process. Also, going through the process of peer-reviewing a manuscript and reading other reviewer’s comments, will help you critically assess your own manuscript more effectively. Second, for you as a researcher, building a track record of journals that request your services as a reviewer may be a component of your curriculum vitae. Also, a track record of good reviews will enhance your reputations with the editors. Third, as a reviewer, you’re given an early peak at novel unpublished data. This brings a major responsibility and breaching confidentiality to scoop a submitting author would be a serious offence. However, it may give an incentive to (re)direct your experiments so that you have a ‘head-start’ after eventual publication of the manuscript you’re reviewing. Fourth, writing a review means you are participating in the social culture of research. You are helping the editor that invited you. You are making peer-review possible for the submitting author and ultimately, you are enabling the continuing process of keeping a high quality level of science. Finally, invited editorial comments are often commissioned to reviewers that provided a good track record of peer reviews and showed profound insight in he reviewed manuscript. [edit]Further reading http://www. people. vcu. edu/~aslee/referee. htm http://www. medscape. com/viewarticle/409692_3 Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA. 1997 Mar 19;277(11):927-34 Downloadable from e. g. [here] Home  Ã‚  Ã‚  About  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Cont act  Ã‚  Ã‚  Contribute  Ã‚  Ã‚  Feedback †¢ Log in / create account ? Research Topics ? Learning Resources ? Dutch Investigators ? Dutch Publications ? Clinical Trials ? Practical PhD guide ? Useful links pic] ? Online forum [pic] ? Agenda ? PLAN/Courses ? Newsletters ? Spotlights ? Photo Gallery ? Jobs/Trainees Top of Form [pic][pic]  Ã‚  [pic] Bottom of Form Supported by: [pic] [pic] [pic] | | | | ? About NIER ? Disclaimers ? Views: 5,040 ? Modified: 13:53, 26 January 2009. ? Hosted by Xentax Foundation |Reviewing a Manuscript | |for Publication | |Allen S. Lee | |Professor, Department of Information Systems   | |Eminent Scholar, Information Systems Research Institute | |School of Business   | |Virginia Commonwealth University | |http://www. eople. vcu. edu/~aslee/ | |Published as an invited note in | |Journal of Operations Management   | |Volume 13, Number 1 (July 1995), pp. 7-92. | |If you copy, download, or circulate this paper, please simply inform the author (at  AllenSLee@alum. mit. edu) | |that you are doing so. | |This paper is based on remarks that the author prepared for presentation at the New Faculty Workshop held at | |the 23rdAnnual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute in Miami Beach, Florida, November 22, 1991. |  Ã‚   | |[pic] | |Abstract | |This paper offers suggestions about how to review a manuscript submitted for publication in the fields of | |management information systems, organizational studies, operations management, and management in general. |Rationales for the suggestions and illustra tive sample comments are provided. | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |[pic] | |Contents | |Abstract | |Action 1:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Start out with your own summary of the manuscript. | |Action 2:  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Let the editor and author know what your expertise does, and does not, cover. |Action 3:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Give â€Å"action-able† advice. | |Action 4:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Convince the authors by arguing from their own assumptions and framework. | |Action 5:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Provide both (1) your general, overall reaction and (2) a list of specific, numbered | |point-by-point comments. | |Action 6:  Ã‚  Ã‚   List the manuscript’s strengths. | |Action 7:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Quote, give the page number, or otherwise explicitly locate the parts of the manuscript to which | |you are referring. | |Action 8:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Offer comments on tables, figures, and diagrams. |Action 9:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Be kind. | |Action 10:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Be frank, in a tactful way, about your own emotional reaction. | |Action 11:  Ã‚  Ã‚   D o some of your own library research. | |Action 12:  Ã‚  Ã‚   If rejecting the manuscript, suggest what future research efforts might examine. | |Action 13:  Ã‚  Ã‚   If recommending a revision, spell out alternative scenarios for how the revision could be done. | |Action 14:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Provide citations or a bibliography. | |Action 15:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Date your review. | |Why Review? |Conclusion | |  Ã‚   | |[pic] | | | |As management researchers, we regard the behavior of managers, systems professionals, and other organizational | |participants to be a manifestation of the values that they hold as members of their organization and their | |profession. In the same way, we may regard our own behaviors, as reviewers of manuscripts in the â€Å"double blind†| |reviewing process, to be a manifestation of the values that we hold as members of the community of scholars. As| |an author and editor, I have seen our community manifest the best and the worst of human values in th e | |anonymous reviews offered on manuscripts submitted for publication. Some reviewers rise to the occasion and | |give extensive help, even though the anonymous reviewing process promises them nothing in return for their | |efforts. Other reviewers hide behind the anonymity of the reviewing process, offering negative remarks that | |they would not have the courage to voice in public. My immediate purpose is to offer suggestions, based on the | |reviews I have seen as an author and editor, about how to provide useful, kind, constructive, and responsible | |reviews of manuscripts submitted for publication. I offer these suggestions to my colleagues who review | |manuscripts submitted for publication in research journals in management information systems, organizational | studies, operations management, and other fields of management. | |1. Suggestions for Reviewing a Manuscript | |For many of the suggestions below, I offer sample comments to illustrate my points. I have based these comments| |on actual reviews. | |1. 1  Ã‚  Ã‚   Start out with Your Own Summary of the Manuscript | | | |As a reviewer for a manuscript, I was surprised, upon subsequently receiving the associate editor’s own review,| |to see that he began with a summary of the manuscript. After all, an author knows what his or her own | |manuscript is about, so why summarize it? | |Apparently, at least in this case, the summary was provided for the benefit of the senior editor, not | |necessarily the author. The associate editor’s review was, I realized, as much a recommendation to the senior | |editor as it was an explanation to the authors. Because a reviewer’s review is, in the same way, a | |recommendation to an editor, I have come to believe that a summary of the manuscript being considered is no | |less useful in the reviewer’s review. | |I now believe that an opening summary may also be useful to the manuscript’s author and to the reviewer himself| |or herself. For the author, how effectively the reviewer’s summary does or does not capture the gist of the | |manuscript may serve as one measure of how effectively the manuscript communicates its message. For the | |reviewer, the very exercise of composing a summary encourages and virtually assures a thorough reading of the | |manuscript. | |Opening summaries are also useful to the editor when the manuscript is controversial. Occasionally, as an | |editor, I have wondered if the different reviewers assigned to a controversial manuscript have actually been | |sent the same manuscript. An opening summary of the manuscript, presented from the reviewer’s own perspective, | |would be a big help to the editor when he or she is trying to reach a decision on a manuscript that evokes | |controversial reactions. |Some illustrative sample comments are: | |This paper represents a major effort to test two competing theories about user satisfaction with electronic | |mail†¦ The methodolo gy of the paper consists of†¦ The data were gathered from two field sites†¦ The major | |finding was that†¦ The contributions to theory and practice would appear to be†¦ | |  Ã‚   | |This manuscript pursues two somewhat conflicting goals. It attempts to†¦, while it also tries to†¦. The authors | |do a good job of the first one, but their treatment of the second one raises more questions than it answers. | | | |1.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Let the Editor and Author Know What Your Expertise Does, and Does Not, Cover | | | |By stating where you have expertise and, no less important, where you lack expertise, you will be helping the | |editor and author in their job of interpreting and weighing your comments. Reviewers, in voluntarily | |identifying where their expertise may be lacking with regard to the manuscript being reviewed, might even gain | |additional credibility for their claims about where they do have expertise. | |I read the paper from two perspectiv es: 1) someone who has employed the same methodology that the authors are | |using and 2) someone who is not familiar at all with the substantive area that the authors are investigating. | |My criticisms and suggestions are offered entirely from the first perspective. |For the reader, such as myself, who is unfamiliar with concepts X, Y, and Z, the authors present no helpful | |explanation of these concepts or justification for their inclusion in the study in the first place†¦Ã‚  Ã‚   | |  Ã‚   | |Another problem I had is that, probably like most of the people who read this journal, I am not deeply read in | |all three of the research fields that the authors draw upon. I cannot judge how well this paper builds on past | |research. | |   | |1. 3  Ã‚  Ã‚   Give â€Å"Action-able† Advice | |Advice stated in the form of do-able tasks is mutually advantageous to the author and the reviewer in the event| |that the editor asks for a revision. For the author, the advised actions point to a â€Å"fixed target† where he or | |she may aim the revision. For the reviewer, the advised actions (as further interpreted by the editor) may | |serve as the criteria on which to judge the revision. In contrast, a reviewer who offers vague generalities, | |and no action-able advice, in his or her first review would have no real â€Å"handle† with which to approve or | |disapprove the revision; such a reviewer might very well find a revision returning to â€Å"haunt† him or her. | |If my concerns can be addressed successfully in a revision, then I believe the paper should be published. I | |have four major concerns. They are†¦ | |  Ã‚   | |Therefore, I recommend rejection, but would be willing to review a revised version if (1) †¦Ã‚   and (2) †¦Ã‚   | |  Ã‚   | |The following suggestions are provided to improve the weaknesses pointed out above: | |Clearly state the objectives, contributions, and limitations of the study. | |Provide a definition of what you mean by Organizational Support System and use it consistently throughout the | |paper. | |Using this definition, narrow down the literature review. | |1.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Convince the Authors by Arguing from  Their Own Assumptions and Framework | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |A reviewer can always take issue with a manuscript’s assumptions and framework. However, disagreeing with the | |assumptions is not always an effective reviewing strategy because, strictly speaking, all assumptions are | |incorrect for what they assume away. An alternative strategy is to accept the manuscript’s assumptions (if only| |for the sake of argument) and then to point out any shortcomings in the manuscript by examining the | |consequences that follow from these assumptions. (Indeed, if the assumptions lead to no objectionable | |consequences, then the assumptions might not be bad assumptions in the first place.    By casting the review in | |terms of the authors’ own framework, the reviewer might then be more likely to convince the authors by courting| |and affirming the authors, rather than by disputing the authors. | |On the first page, the paper says that it will do the following†¦ The rest of the paper, however, does not | |follow through adequately on what it promised to do. In particular, according to the standards of the research | |framework that the authors themselves have chosen, the following things still need to be done or need to be | |done better†¦ Still, there is much potential value in what the paper initially proposed and I encourage the | |authors to flesh out the paper’s ide as more thoroughly. Along these lines, my suggestions are†¦ | |If the reviewer wishes to suggest a different framework and set of assumptions to the authors, this suggestion | |would be more convincing after the reviewer has demonstrated that he or she has given due consideration to the | |authors’ original framework, rather than dismissing it outright. | |1. 5  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Provide Both (1) Your General, Overall Reaction and (2) a List of Specific, Numbered Point-by-Point | |Comments | |  Ã‚   | |As an author, I have received some reviews consisting entirely of numbered, point-by-point comments that give | |the impression that the reviewer was simply typing up his or her review as he or she was reading my manuscript | |linearly, sentence-by-sentence, turning it page-by-page. Whereas such a review might be detailed and even | |exhaustive, I have found that such reviews sometimes negatively criticize me on matters that I actually address| |satisfactorily later in the manuscript. These reviewers do a good job of analyzing the words in my manuscript, | |but they appear to put no effort into discerning what I meant by these words. My impression has been that these| |reviewers considered the reviewing job to be a burden and just wanted to get it over. I have found that if | |there is no statement of an overall reaction from the reviewer, I am sometimes left wondering about what the | |reviewer really means. In fact, in this situation, I sometimes wonder if the reviewer himself knows what he | |means. For these reasons, I believe that a general, overall reaction or overview from the reviewer is needed as| |much as his or her specific, point-by-point comments. | |  However, there is at least one occasion in which a linear, sentence-by-sentence, and page-by-page reading | |might be useful. When I am a reviewer, I will occasionally amend my review by paging through the manuscript | |once more and enumerating, point-by-point, any comments which I had planned to make when I first read the | |manuscript, but which somehow did not make their way into the main body of my review. | |Numbering the major points in a review is helpful to the editor and author. For instance, an editor could then | |conveniently say to the author, â€Å"Pay particular attention to points 2, 3, and 5 by Reviewer 1. † | |1. 6  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  List the Manuscript’s Strengths | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |Perhaps the most disheartening review I have ever seen is one that began with the single-sentence paragraph, | |â€Å"There are several problems with this paper,† and followed with a numbered, blow-by-blow listing of all the | |alleged problems in the manuscript. An accompanying listing of the manuscript’s strengths would have made the | |review more palatable (and hence convincing) to the author. |   | |A listing of the manuscript’s strengths takes on added importance when the reviewer’s recommendation is that | |the manuscript should be rejected. Is there really nothing in the manuscript that would make it worthy of a | |revision? Making up a list of the manuscript’s strengths would help make sure that no stone is left u nturned. | |The major asset of this manuscript is that it presents a new approach to†¦This, in turn, raises interesting | |general issues such as: (1)†¦(2)†¦(3)†¦Ã‚   | |  Ã‚   | |Major strengths. |The objective of this paper is of high interest and use to IS managers. | |The authors are exceptionally clear about how this study builds on past studies. | |The methodology, while new to IS, is clearly explained. | |1. 7  Ã‚  Ã‚   Quote, Give the Page Number, or Otherwise Explicitly Locate the Parts of the Manuscript to Which You | |Are Referring | |This will pinpoint what you find difficult to understand, what you disagree with, or exactly what you believe | |needs to be changed. Moreover, if the author should disagree with your assessment, then the author may respond | |precisely to your objection. |In the third paragraph on page 9, it is not clear to me that the authors understand the concept of construct | |validity. | |  Ã‚   | |On page 3, in the literat ure review section, the paper says, â€Å"†¦only 12 percent of the past studies examined the| |same factors we will be examining in this study†¦. † Exactly which studies were these? I do not doubt your | |statement, but I would like to be able to evaluate it for myself. | |  Ã‚   | |On page 2, why does the prior research necessarily suggest that we need to study this topic, as you claim? | |1.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Offer Comments on Tables, Figures, and Diagrams | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |Because tables, figures, and diagrams often appear at the end of the manuscript, they often do not receive the | |attention they deserve. However, I believe that reviewing an illustration can be equivalent to reviewing a | |thousand words. Because illustrations are often overlooked in reviews, a detailed comment about an illustration| |might favorably impress the author and editor, suggesting to them that the reviewer is especially | |conscientious. Also, suggesting a new table, figure, or d iagram may encourage the author to sharpen his or her | |argument. | |Table 6 makes no sense to me. The labels along the vertical axis are mentioned nowhere in the text. | |I don’t understand the reason for including Figure 4. What is the relevance of the number of X broken down | |into three categories? | |1. 9  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Be Kind | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |There are tactful ways to express negative criticisms. For example, if you are unsure what the contribution of | |the manuscript is, say  Ã¢â‚¬Å"What’s new? †Ã‚  instead of â€Å"So what? †I believe that if the criticism cannot be stated in a| |kind and constructive way, then the criticism might not be worth stating at all. Also, unkind remarks in a | |review that is otherwise valid may create difficulties for the editor who would like to persuade the author | |that the review does have merit. | |1. 10  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Be Frank, in a Tactful Way, about Your Own Emotional Reaction | |  Ã‚   | |Some reviews tend to be dry. As an author and editor, I find that any hint or explicit statement about the | |reviewer’s feelings will help me to interpret what he or she means. | |I had a hard time making a recommendation on this manuscript . . . The paper is nicely written and competent, | |but dull. It is hard to get excited about the findings. | |I am very excited about this paper. At a recent conference a colleague and I were on a panel where we debated | |similar points†¦ | |1. 11  Ã‚  Ã‚   Do Some of Your Own Library Research | |  Ã‚   | |In my experience as an author and editor, I tend to give an extra measure of credibility to reviewers who have | |done some library or other research for their review. This effort makes the review appear sincere and | |convincing. A quotation from a book or article that the reviewer has looked up can be impressive. |On page 14, I was intrigued by the paper’s quotation of Carlson, so I decided to look up Carlson’s article. My | |interpretation of Carlson’s article is. . . | |1. 12  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  If Rejecting the Manuscript, Suggest What Future Research Efforts Might Examine | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |Our own behavior as reviewers in the â€Å"double blind† review process reveals our individual values, which may | |include adversarial values and collegial values. Rejecting a manuscript and offer ing only the reasons for | |rejection reveals a person who has no contribution to make to the overall community of scholars. Rejecting a | |manuscript, but also offering suggestions about what the author could pursue instead or pursue differently in | |future research, reveals a person who is integrated into the community of scholars and seeks to foster its | |growth. | |1. 13  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  If Recommending a Revision, Spell Out Alternative Scenarios for How the Revision Could be Done | |  Ã‚   | |Simply saying â€Å"this paper needs a good re-write† is not, by itself, helpful, especially if it is true. Often, | |there is more than one way to revise a manuscript. Suggest two or more scenarios, mention what you believe to | |be the advantages or disadvantages of each one, and leave the choice up to the author. | |1. 4  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Provide Citations or a Bibliography | |  Ã‚   | |A citation that the author finds helpful can be as valuable as a thousand or more words in the rest of the | |review. | |1. 15  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Date Your Review | |  Ã‚   | |As an author and editor, I do not apprecia te late reviews. Once, I noticed that a colleague of min e | |prominently displayed the current date at the top of a review that he was about to send in. He said that the | |date would let the authors of the manuscript know that, if the overall cycle time on their manuscript was | |excessive, he was not the cause. I also suspect that a date on a review can function as an incentive for | |subsequent participants in the review process to act on the manuscript promptly. | |2. Why Review? | |   | |I see four benefits to engaging in the effort of reviewing a manuscript submitted for publication. | |Benefits to the Reviewer in the Short Run  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Typically, a reviewer will receive the reviews by the other | |reviewers and the editor. Doing a review therefore confers an insider’s view of the reviewing process. The | |reactions of the other reviewers and the editor all contain potential lessons for one’s own manuscripts to be | |submitted for publication. In reviewing manuscripts, one also gains access to invaluable bibliographies. | |Access to these bibliographies is sufficient justification, in itself, to find the time to participate in the | |reviewing process. | |Benefits to the Reviewer in the Long Run  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Good reviewers are hard to find. A track record of good reviews | |will enhance one’s reputation with editors, who may then serve (if need be) as job contacts or outside | |reviewers in one’s tenure, promotion, and re-appointment process. In this regard, one’s performance in his or | |her review of a manuscript can be compared to one’s performance in a job interview. Good reviews can benefit | |one’s career. | |Benefits to Others  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Numerous people have helped me launch my career as an university teacher and researcher. | |When they ask me to review a manuscript for which they are the editor or track chair, I regard their request as| |an opportunity for me to return some of the help they have given me. In our research culture, doing a review | |of a manuscript is a socially significant gesture. | |Benefits to One’s Own School of Thought  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As an author, I often have the experience in which reviewers, | |hostile to and ignorant of the research traditions that I embrace, misreview my submission. Therefore, | |whenever I find that I am a reviewer for a submission that falls in my own school of thought, I expend extra | |efforts to give it a careful, constructive review. Realizing that the refereeing process is political, I will | |do my best to be supportive and affirmingly critical, drawing attention to any major significant points in the | |submission and delineating in explicit, constructive, and â€Å"action-able† ways how the author’s research can be | |improved. As a result, the editor would, if necessary, have some â€Å"ammunition† with which to neutralize any | |hostile and ignorant reviews and thereby to justify a positive editorial decision on this submission. | |3. Conclusion | |No review of a manuscript must incorporate all the features I have described above. I am also confident that | |there are additional useful features I have not yet encountered. I have identified these features based on my | |own experience as a member of the management research community. I encourage my colleagues to do the same. | |Do actual instances of good reviews follow from rules for how to review a manuscript for publication, or do | |rules for ho How to cite Paper Evaluation, Papers

Agency problems and reputation in services - MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Agency problems and reputation in services. Answer: Commercial auto insurance The insurance product or service in this paper is the auto repair garage insurance. The chosen product or service in this regard is the commercial auto insurance. As the subject is insurance, no specific product can be taken in this context. It would be better to take a service of the insurance policies (Schneider, 2012). In this case the commercial auto insurance has been selected. There are many benefits of the commercial auto insurance. This insurance service is for the benefit of the business customers. If the repair of the auto services is required, the owner of the vehicle will get the protection in real time. There will be no issues about who is driving the vehicle. If there are any cases of lawsuit because of harsh driving by the drivers, this insurance policy will fix all the charges like the car damages, fees of the lawyer and all the medical expenses. The insurance limits are higher so there will be no problem about returning the monetary amount for the damages (Desyllas Sako, 2013). If the employees of the company get into any accident, this insurance policy will save the employees as well. It is because the employees are the main pillars of the organizations. The insurance will cover all the internal stakeholders of the organization and thus, employees will receive accidental benefits from the insurance. This insurance policy protects the business employees from all the lawsuits. This commercial auto insurance helps the business equipments like catering equipments to the hydraulic fits. This insurance coverage will allow the company to replace these tools and equipments. Thus, the insurance will provide holistic coverage for the company. The commercial auto insurance will help to protect the interests of the requirements of the business. The commercial auto insurance will help the employees to get many advantages (Desyllas Sako, 2013). One of the key advantages to be gained by them is the financial assurance of their accidents and any unwarranted incidents. Many other benefits are also offered as well by the commercial auto insurance. This includes providing medical benefits and assistance to the employees and their families. The commercial auto insurance will offer the coverage to the concerned business owner and the employees. The business can stay with compliance with all the local and state laws. The commercial auto insurance can be very beneficial in the case of providing the protection for the entire business. This kind of insurance helps the business to get protection from the severe lawsuits. The business can be saved from being bankrupt. The liability coverage can be given to the vehicles if commercial auto insurance is done. The business will not be liable to be suffering losses. The business owners can opt for working with their independent insurance agents for better service. Losses in commercial auto insurance The losses that can be portrayed on the commercial auto insurance are:- The market conditions are very soft in most of the no-auto lines. The meaning of this is the fact the competition is very much. The investment returns have been very slow indeed. This would require more growth in the coming years (Baker Swedloff, 2012). The direct premiums will increase in this year. So the sauto rates will go higher in many cases indeed. The costs are increasing so it is becoming very problematic to carry through the commercial auto insurance (Baker Swedloff, 2012). The loss ratios are very high. This is why the auto insurance premiums will continue to rise. The two companies that provide the best services in the commercial auto insurance are Aviva Canada Group of Companies and Umbrella Warranty Ltd (Umbrellawarranty.ca, 2018). These two companies play an essential role in promoting the commercial auto insurance. This is a beneficial insurance service for many organizations indeed. This is really an important service in the limelight of auto repair garage insurance services. References Baker, T., Swedloff, R. (2012). Regulation by Liability Insurance: From Auto to Lawyers Professional Liability.UCLA L. Rev.,60, 1412. Desyllas, P., Sako, M. (2013). Profiting from business model innovation: Evidence from Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance.Research Policy,42(1), 101-116. Schneider, H. S. (2012). Agency problems and reputation in expert services: Evidence from auto repair.The Journal of Industrial Economics,60(3), 406-433. Umbrellawarranty.ca. (2018).Vehicle Mechanical Breakdown Coverage | Umbrella Warranty.Umbrella Warranty. Retrieved 25 January 2018, from https://umbrellawarranty.ca/

Commentary in an extract from the book Essay Example For Students

Commentary in an extract from the book Essay This passage is located from page 230 to 231, whose main conflict resembles to how religion losses importance as science keeps on evolving.  Characters involved  The participants in this passage are Mr. Mustapha Mond, the headmaster for the conditioning centre in Eastern Europe, and John, a British boy who lived overseas (New Mexico) in a reservation, where family union and religious believes were strongly encouraged. John returned with his mother Linda to England, as they produced a friendship with Bernard and Lelina during a vacation of theirs in the reservation. John struggled to fit in the technological world of Europe, as he loved to talk about God and read Shakespeare; hence, the narrator changes his name to The Savage. Explanation of passage  In this passage John and Mustapha Mond start talking about the way religion has been abolished in England, and all other places where babies are artificially produced, as science by itself can produce all answers humans wish to know (according to world controllers) . However, Mustapha Mond reveals an astonishing secret to John, regarding his passion for knowing prohibited information, in this case religious information. In this passage Huxley intends to reflect how human nature will never change regardless of the time in history, as A CONTROLLER reflects interests on religion! Controllers are meant to base their lives on science, but Mustapha Mond shows that even scientist wish to know about their philosophical existence. Knowing about oneà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s existence is part of human nature, thus Huxley in this passage intends to literarily exhibit how humans will always resemble to their nature, without mattering the advances of science. Contextualizing the passage with the rest of the novel  The passage is situated at the beginning of chapter 17, just after Mustapha Mond tells Helmholtz and Bernard that they are going to be transferred to remote islands, due to their unorthodox behavior in England, and hence not doing their job properly. There exists an interesting contrast between chapter 16 and the beginning of 17, as in the first one Mustapha follows a protocol of removing individuals, while in the following episode he exposes the reader that although he lives in a techno-utopia, his human nature (evidenced from ancient times), is seen when he shows John all the biblical texts he has hidden. Therefore, Huxley is trying to exhibit that nature will never be over passed by science; nature is an independent entity from a moment in time. Also, Huxley shows that religion is part of human nature, as it makes humans think about the origin of all. It is evident that the book provides the idea that humans are being created under certain genetic characteristics, however such inventions are intended for the wellbeing of a society (according to the novel), which is an ancient ideal of humans; its something natural, thus nature is not being changed. Nature is rather being allocated differently for fitting the standards of Fordà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s society. That explains the interest of Mustapha Mond towards biblical texts, and thus the intention of the author for exposing his thoughts towards the world. And although the narrative doesnt show a direct impact of what has been mentioned, the contrasts seen along the novel reflect such ideals. Language, Narrative  Use of adjectives and key words  There are certain linguistic aspects that the passage exhibits, in order to create a realistic and believable scenery to the reader. Initially, the passage is a descriptive text, due to its good amount of adjectives and other key words. One first phrase for producing wide and coherent descriptions is when the narrator tells that Mustapha Mond opened a heavy door for taking out his biblical texts. By having applied the word heavy, Huxley makes emphasis on expressing that the information kept inside those walls is important, thus the exaggerated protection. Hence, with the implementation of adjectives the author minimizes the length of his sentences and maximizes the power of his descriptions. .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8 , .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8 .postImageUrl , .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8 , .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8:hover , .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8:visited , .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8:active { border:0!important; } .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8:active , .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8 .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u08fb3d8c70e9b514978d15afc1009be8:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: She - At His Funeral EssayA very evident fact for contextualizing and making the novel logical is the name given to John after his arrival to London, The Savage. With this nickname the author can openly expose Johnà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s character and the societys perception towards him. Along the text it is seen that Huxley repetitively shows this word, in order to expose to the reader his perception of what our present behavior will be seen in some coming future. The word savage also makes emphasis for the end of the book, as John ended up hanging himself as he did not resists England without the constant presence of his friend Bernard: only savages do such act. Repetitions and narrative, in regards to religion  In order to make the narrative interesting and contextualized, there also exists the concept of repetition along the passage. It is evident that along the extract there are several repetitive words like God, and Savage, already mentioned, which not simply allows the novel to be well contextualized, but permits the reader to remind himself about the places and situations under which the novel happens. The most controversial word seen along the text is God. One the main reasons that Huxley introduces that word throughout the whole book, is because it highlights the conflict between ancient and modern philosophies of life. It is evident that England is not interested at all in religious contents, but the reservation in New Mexico where John grew up has huge appreciation for God. Thus, the issue of religion along history is being portrayed by constantly introducing the word God. The mentioning of religion along the book is also a direct consequence of the novelà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s topic; the way in which religion has been abolished due to the advance in science. Huxley has a valid intention to introduce this topic by contextualizing it with John. He is clearly a contrast in the way humanity has evolved after Ford, as he demonstrates great interest for Shakespeare and God, while the rest of society abolishes those conceptions. John is a representation of our society in the far future, when referring to Huxleyà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½s novel. Therefore, the author has the intention of contrasting his invented moment in time with the present we experience, in order to make the reader realize that human behavior and ideals change along time, as humans are an evolving entity. Huxley has always an intention behind his scripts, and as it can be clearly seen along this passage, the most prevalent aspect Huxley portrays is societal behavior.