The creation of a scientific article can prepare you for expert consumption of science, and even the expert peer review of science. Participate in this hands-on workshop. Learn the tricks of the trade. Learn the difference between a literature for a class paper as compared to a literature review for publication. Learn the role of the annotated review for the creation of methods, variables, and analysis know as a nomological network. This network would include the theoretical framework for what you are trying to measure, an empirical framework for how you are going to measure it, and specification of the linkages among and between these two frameworks. Join this workshop, play the game, and learn annotated literature for publication and peer reviewed editorial work.

Presented 10/22/2016


What is in an article?


  • What are the structural elements of a scientific article?
  • How do you read a scientific article?

Open this link

In reviewing an article for operationalizing, what should you do?


  • Summary/Abstract/ Key words
  • Problem statement
  • Literature review
  • Methods
  • Analysis
  • Outcomes
  • Discussion

Summary/ Abstract/ Key words

  • Note the highlights in the summary/ abstract
  • Do the key words in the summary align? What is missing? Is there jargon? Do the words seem to align with your knowledge and experience?

Problem statement

  • Is the problem statement clear, concise and jargon free?
  • Does the literature review provide a focused review to lead into and support the research questions and methods?
  • Review the ideas

Literature review

  • Check the citations and sources
  • Does the article provide a foundation towards describing work in service to the problem statement?
  • Is the article is a citation dump: that there so many citations, that there is a lack of focus?
  • Are the articles summarized to provide support to extend a question/ investigation?
    • Is the review well-organized?
    • Do they provide a table?


  • Are the articles summarized with a clear link to the target variables, sampling, data collection,  and analysis method?



  • How do the methods support the research question / hypothesis test?
    • Are the methods capable of answering the question?
  • Are there gaps in the methods?
  • What are the key assumptions in these methodological approaches?
  • Do you have a good example of what these different methodological approaches should include?
    • Are they using grounded theory, are they using a parametric test, are they offering effect sizes, are they using trim and fill (meta analysis).
    • What are the requirements/expectations for the method?


  • Does the analysis methods answer the question being asked?
  • Is the necessary information present to verify the analysis?
  • Does the analysis have the correct formatting based upon the analysis testing?
    • Are tables, figures and data presented according to APA?


  • Are the outcomes/ interpretations supported by the data?
  • Do the outcomes answer the research question?


  • Does the discussion offer
    • Insight?
    • Limitations?
    • Next steps?

Example Method

  • Have highlighter, pen, and paper
    • Take them out of your hands, and place them on the table
  • Simply give it a quick read for gist, and overall feel.
  • Now pick up the pen, highlighter, and paper.
    • This is where begin to annotate the article for my citation software/ peer review,
    • Read for logic and flow
    • operationalizing research questions and variables.
    • What are my thoughts on each section?
    • What is the thesis of each paragraph?
      • I write down my gist feeling and examine this feeling with reasoning.
      • Look for evidence for and against my feeling about how the parts serve the whole
  • Research / annotated lit review
    • What is my overall thought as a potential reader of the journal?
    • How does this relate to the questions in my study?
  • Imagine the author as a hardworking person that cares alot about what they wrote
    • Have the authors done well?
    • If the author/s have done a good job, I commend them — do this early, and maintain a positive tone
      • do not attack or insult the author
    • If they have not done well, I suggest the major issues that might be improved with a suggestion for how to do it, and perhaps where to look.

Use the online scoring system, and provide summaries of reasoning/evidence

  • Use page numbers quotes, suggest examples, new ideas, and resources.
  • I combine my notes based upon each of the online scoring system scores.
  • I examine the relationship between the literature review, methods, analysis, and outcomes as an overall evaluation – is it good, it needs revision, the paper needs major revision, the paper needs to be resubmitted.
  • I transfer those notes into the submission system with the message to the author/s, including general suggestion for fit in the journal, and helpful suggestions for next steps.
  • I review my analysis for tone.

–Is what I am saying helpful?




  • I am not the gatekeeper, my role is to encourage, and help people get better
  • I try to use empathy, build community, and be inclusive

Reviewer specific issue:

  • does the article meet the aims and scope of the journal?


Scope and Aims

  • To promote a deep conceptual and empirical understanding of the roles of electronic games and computer-mediated simulations across multiple disciplines.
  • To help build a significant bridge between research and practice on electronic gaming and simulations, supporting the work of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.

Audience appeal

  • Scientific papers typically have two audiences:
    • Journal readers themselves, who may be more or less knowledgeable about the topic addressed in the pape
    • Referees, who help the journal editor decide whether a paper is suitable for publication
    • Your mom or dad, or spouse –if they doing this, you probably don’t deserve them :)



Become a reviewer

Submit an article