Content of review 1, reviewed on February 23, 2019
Abstract, title and references: ● Is the aim clear? No ● Is it clear what the study found and how they did it? No ● Is the title informative and relevant? No ● Are the references: ● Relevant? yes ● Recent? No ● Referenced correctly? Yes ● Are appropriate key studies included? No Introduction/background ● Is it clear what is already known about this topic? No ● Is the research question clearly outlined? No ● Is the research question justified given what is already known about the topic? No Methods ● Is the process of subject selection clear?No ● Are the variables defined and measured appropriately? No ● Are the study methods valid and reliable? Not at all ● Is there enough detail in order to replicate the study? Not at all Results ● Is the data presented in an appropriate way? Yes ● Tables and figures relevant and clearly presented? Yes ● Appropriate units, rounding, and number of decimals? No ● Titles, columns, and rows labelled correctly and clearly? No ● Categories grouped appropriately? No ● Does the text in the results add to the data or is it repetitive? Repetitive ● Are you clear about what is a statistically significant result? No ● Are you clear about what is a practically meaningful result? Not at all Discussion and Conclusions ● Are the results discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being overinterpreted? Not at all ● Do the conclusions answer the aims of the study? No ● Are the conclusions supported by references or results? To some extent ● Are the limitations of the study fatal or are they opportunities to inform future research? Fatal Overall ● Was the study design appropriate to answer the aim? No ●
Source
© 2019 the Reviewer (CC BY 4.0).
References
Franz, N. M., Musher, L. J., Brown, J. W., Yu, S., Ludäscher, B. 2019. Verbalizing phylogenomic conflict: Representation of node congruence across competing reconstructions of the neoavian explosion. PLOS Computational Biology.