Peer Review Checklist: Fill & Download for Free

Any checklist in software engineering is a set of guidelines against which you can assess a deliverable. The deliverable can be a document or a software.E.g. A code review checklist would contain points which can be used by a peer to review the code written by her team member.

What are the main disctinctions between econometric and machine learning techniques?What methods do you use to select and validate predictive models?How do you select and reduce variables in a large dataset?Explain the end-to-end analytics process you follow to support inquiries?How do you apply the scientific method, especially in relation to hypothesis generation and testing?Note that proper answers to these questions are multi-faceted, being intended to tease out the fusion of practical experience (applied technical + methodological knowledge) united with theoretical understanding (grasp of the basic tenants of data analytics and the scientific research process).Note that there is a dearth of focus on tools and engineering. I believe there are some who feel that the ability to use R or Python + Hadoop ecosystem exposure = data scientist. In my view, these are simply tools requiring underlying applied methodological understanding (having a hammer, a saw, and lots of wood does not make one a carpenter, per se).Lastly, I’ve spoken with many who are quite frustrated with the data science recruiting process in general, so am concerned that someone with no context asks these questions and attempts to interpret ‘right or wrong’ answers (like a school pop quiz). Recruiters and HR reps want a neat little checklist. However, judging domain knowledge and applied expertise should ultimately be the subject of peer review (someone who has spent years on these problems).Thus, the questions are not intended for first stage gating. For gating, I would suggest a review of work experience and education/training would be appropriate (CV/resume review). From reports I hear from those soliciting, it is somewhat surprising the degree to which first stage gating involves ‘pop quiz’ questions asked by those with little technical / methodological background in data science. I would not presume to be able to assess if an HR professional grasps the basics of a well designed corporate compensation and incentive system based on a 5 minute scan of a Wikipedia page. However, the notion that the reverse is possible seems to persist. The ‘end risk’ is of hiring pseudo-professionals (those who give off the patina of expertise). I believe many of my colleagues and associates would like to collaborate on a better model, a return to reason.

Clear steps must be put in place to create an editorial process that promotes high-quality output. The following steps 7 will help you to sort out the chaff from the wheat when it comes to massive incoming submission volumes.7 Key editorial process steps1️⃣ Pre-checkThe pre-check is the initial gate, which many submissions will not pass through.Has all additional information requested to accompany submissions been provided?Is the manuscript compliant with the publication’s guidelines for authors?Has the submission been formatted in line with publication requirements?Does the submission meet selection standards?2️⃣ Initial screeningThe initial screening is the second gate, which can also knock many submissions out of the running.Does the submission fall within the publication’s scope?Will the submission be of interest to the publication’s readership?Can the manuscript exceed a minimum acceptable standard of quality for review?Is the authorship of the submission verifiable?Are there any plagiarism concerns?3️⃣ Peer reviewPeer review is more common for academic journals than for other published media.Two to six peer reviewers will typically be asked to review each submission.Best practices recommend removing all identifying information about the author from submissions.Reviewers should be experts on the subject matter they are reviewing.4️⃣ RevisionIn academic settings, the submission may be kicked back to the author for revision before submission to the editor.The submission may or may not be required to go back through peer review.Typically, two rounds of revisions are the maximum requested before acceptance or rejection.5️⃣ Editor decisionThere may be one editor who has the final decision or an editorial board that makes a collective decision.The manuscript will be checked to ensure all revision requests have been met.The material will be reviewed to ensure that it meets the standard for publication.The content will be checked a final time for any potential plagiarism.6️⃣ Production, proofreading, and publicationAt the end of the editorial process, production takes over. This process will manage:Layout editingLanguage editingIndexingFormatting7️⃣ Correction and RetractionIn case a correction or retraction needs to be made, the process will depend on the publicationAcademic journals: published separately at the end of each issueMagazines or newspapers: published in subsequent issuesDigital publications: published as an update at the top or bottom of the page