Here’s a quite helpful checklist for research articles from the Academy of Sociology.
I guess ‘checklist’ is the wrong way to describe it; it’s more like a list of desiderata for good research articles to be considered before starting to write. I mean who’s going to go through 11 pages before submitting an article?
The points are quite helpful, but they are only starting points — follow the links and do your own research on the topics.
It’s common practice to respond to reviewer comments with the phrase “The reviewer raises an important point”, I’ve seen it recommended on many occasions. Today, I had this following gem:
Me (aka reviewer 1): Major point ….
Response: The reviewer raises an important point …
Didn’t I just say so?
I come across this ever so often when doing a review, and there are even journal guidelines giving bad advice on how to blind a manuscript for double-blind peer review.
A good guide can be found here at Oxford Univeristiy Press.
What gets me every time is violations of this:
Do not employ (Author 2016) and similar devices.
While it may look like a good way to anonymize, it actually encourages guessing who the author may be more than anything I know. Often it provides good clues, especially if we can read the titles in the reference list. The funny thing is that as a reviewer, typically I do not want to know who you are (at least not until I have completed the review).
The guidelines cited above are pretty clear:
- do cite yourself if it is relevant
- use appendices/supplements to describe methodology
- do not use (Author 2019)
- do not cite unpublished work