ความคิดเห็นที่ 1
Research is about answering a question.
I would start with hypothesis of the research first. What's the idea behind this work? Is it original?
Hypothesis needs to be tested. By that, it needs good methodology available (in authors' settings). Anyway that tool must be able to answer the question objectively.
Using his/her methodology, they show their results. What's their inferential tool used to interpret their results. Is that tool (mostly statistics) appropriate?
In their discussion part, this maybe the most difficult part for any reviewer. The reviewer must have extensive knowledge in the field sufficient to justify authors' interpretations. Personally, this is the most critical part. Because everything from the beginning to the end (and further) will converge here. I always spend most of my reviewing process here.
Conclusion is the final result of all.... If they come up with good discussion section. Conclusion is not too difficult to justify though.
OK, in short;
1. If the hypothesis is sound, proceed to the next section.
2. If the methodology can objectively (or directly) answer the hypothesis, you may proceed.
3. If the results are shown appropriately and inferential tools are used appropriately with their data, you can proceed.
4. If discussions were made based on their data or being supported by other's published works. They haven't gone too far beyond the context.. This is quite difficult to explain though...
Let's wait for other comments na krub.
Good luck...
จากคุณ :
amatuer translator 
- [
11 ม.ค. 50 01:02:44
]
|
|
|
