20140724 edanz kyushu session 8
TRANSCRIPT
Andrew Jackson, PhD
Senior Editor
Kyushu University Department of Agriculture
Session 8 – Peer Review & Revisions
Kyushu University
24 July 2014
Seminar series
June 5 Effective presentations
June 12 Reviewing the literature
June 19 Academic publishing
June 26 Research and publication ethics
July 3 Effective writing
July 10 Manuscript structure
July 17 Communicating with journals
July 24 Peer review and revisions
Today’s presentation
June 5 Effective presentations
June 12 Reviewing the literature
June 19 Academic publishing
June 26 Research and publication ethics
July 3 Effective writing
July 10 Manuscript structure
July 17 Communicating with journals
July 24 Peer review and revisions
Recommending reviewers
Section 1
Customer Service Recommending reviewers
Why recommend reviewers?
Journal editors are busy! Evaluating new submissions
Finding reviewers
Evaluating reviewer comments
Evaluating revised manuscripts
Commissioning review articles
Organizing special issues
Updating aims and scope
Increasing the profile/visibility of their journal
Ensuring consistency in their publication
Customer Service Recommending reviewers
Why recommend reviewers?
What problems do journal editors face when finding reviewers?
If not in your field, they may not be familiar with whom may be best to evaluate your work
Resort to using online databases to find reviewers
Only ~1/3 of reviewers accept peer review invitations
Customer Service Recommending reviewers
Why recommend reviewers?
Reviewers recommended by authors are usually more favorable
1. Scharschimidt et al. J Clin Invest. 1994; 93: 1877–1880.
2. Earnshaw & Farndon. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2000; 82: 133–135.
3. Grimm. Science 2005; 309: 1974.
4. Wager et al. BMC Med. 2006; 4: 13.
5. Schroter et al. JAMA 2006; 295: 314–317.
6. Rivara et al. J Pediatr. 2007; 151: 202–205.
7. Bornmann & Daniel. Res Eval. 2009; 18: 262–272.
8. Bornmann & Daniel. PLoS One 2010; 5: e13345.
Customer Service Recommending reviewers
Why recommend reviewers?
Reviewers recommended by authors are usually more favorable
Accept Reject
Author Editor Author Editor
JAMA (n=329) 56.9% 46.0% 12.9% 23.6%
BMC Med (n=200) 47.0% 35.0% 10.0% 23.0%
J Pediatr (n=280) 63.6% 42.9% 14.3% 25.0%
Customer Service Recommending reviewers
Do you have to recommend reviewers?
Sometimes (depends on the journal)
“When submitting your paper, you must provide the names, affiliations, and valid e-mail addresses of five (5) reviewers. If you do not do so, your paper will be returned, unreviewed.”
“Authors are requested to provide the names and full addresses (including e-mail address) of up to four potential referees…”
Customer Service Recommending reviewers Who should you choose?
Where to find them?
From your reading/references, networking at conferences
• Chose reviewers who have expertise in one or more aspects of your study
• Avoid direct competitors
• Researchers you have discussed your work with at conferences may be more likely to accept an invitation
Customer Service Recommending reviewers Who should you choose?
How senior? Aim for mid-level researchers
• Full professors, heads of departments, and deans are usually too busy
• Associate professors have good experience and more time
• Note: if you do recommend a senior researcher, they may recommend a junior researcher from their group
Customer Service Recommending reviewers Who should you avoid?
Collaborators (past 5 years)
Researchers from same institution
Researchers without publications
Researchers without English websites
Customer Service Recommending reviewers Choose internationally
• 1 or 2 reviewers from Asia • 1 or 2 reviewers from Europe • 1 or 2 reviewers from North America
Journal Editors want to see an international list for 2 reasons:
1. Shows that you are familiar with your field worldwide
2. Shows that your research is relevant worldwide • Increased readership → increased citations → increased impact factor
Peer Review
Section 2
Peer review Positive process
• Experts give their advice on how you can improve your study and your manuscript
• Peer review ensures that only papers that are relevant for the field and conducted well are published
• Not only helps you improve the quality of your paper, but also helps to advance the field
Peer review What reviewers are evaluating
The science
Relevant hypothesis
• Your aims address an important problem in the field
• This problem has not yet been addressed
Emphasize the current state of the field and the research problem in your Abstract and Introduction
Peer review What reviewers are evaluating
The science
Methodology
• Good experimental design
• Appropriate up-to-date methods
• Proper controls
Read often in your field to be familiar with proper methods
Clearly write your Methods section to discuss these issues
Peer review What reviewers are evaluating
The science
Data
• Important results • Supportive of the hypothesis • Clearly presented • Proper statistical analyses
Clearly organize your Results and Figures
Consult with a statistician regarding statistical tests
Peer review What reviewers are evaluating
The science
Conclusions
• Based only on presented data
• Not based on assumptions
• Relevant for the field
In your Discussion, support all conclusions with findings
Be aware how limitations may affect your conclusions
Peer review What reviewers are evaluating
The manuscript
Presentation
Logical flow of information
• Why it needs to be done • What you did/found • What it means/relevance
Use the hourglass flow of information in your manuscript
Your conclusion is an answer to the identified problem
Peer review What reviewers are evaluating
The manuscript
Structure • Properly formatted
• Clearly labeled figures
Carefully read the author guidelines of your target journal
Ask colleagues if your figures are clear and stand-alone
Peer review What reviewers are evaluating
The manuscript
References
• Up-to-date
• Broadly cited worldwide
• Avoid self-citations
Only cite a few seminal and review articles (Introduction)
Most citations are recent within the last few years
Cite broadly to show you are familiar with your field
Peer review What reviewers are evaluating
The manuscript
Readability
• Correct spelling and grammar
• Clearly communicate your ideas in English
Use short sentences, active voice, and topic/stress positions
Read your manuscript out loud, read by colleagues
Revisions
Section 3
Revisions Decision letter
Decision
Reason
Comments
25 January 2014
Dear Dr. Robens,
Manuscript ID NRL-11-7839: “Gene regulatory networks in living cells”
Your manuscript has been reviewed, and we regret to inform you that based on our Expert reviewers’ comments, it is not possible to further consider your manuscript in its current form for publication in Neurogenetics.
Although the reviews are not entirely negative, it is evident from the extensive comments and concerns that the manuscript, in its current form, does not meet the criteria expected of papers in Neurogenetics. The results appear to be too preliminary and incomplete for publication at the present time.
The reviewer comments are included at the bottom of this letter. I hope the information provided by the reviewers will be helpful in future. Thank you for your interest in the journal and I regret that the outcome has not been favorable at this time.
Revisions Editor is interested in your work
The Reviewer comments are not entirely negative.
It is not possible to consider your manuscript in its current form.
I hope the information provided will be helpful when you revise your manuscript.
I regret that the outcome has not been favorable at this time.
Revisions Editor is not interested in your work
We cannot publish your manuscript
Your study does not contain novel results that merit publication in our journal.
We appreciate your interest in our journal. However, we will not further consider your manuscript for publication.
We wish you luck in publishing your results elsewhere.
Revisions The submission process
Accepted—publication!
Editor Author
Peer review
Reject
Results novel? Topic relevant?
Revision New experiments Improve readability Add information
Revisions
Respond to every reviewer comment
Easy to see changes
Refer to line and page numbers
Use a different color font
Highlight the text
Writing response letters
The response letter is only read by the journal editor
Revisions Writing a response letter
Marc Lippman, MD Editor-in-Chief Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3 September 2013 Dear Dr Lippman, Re: Resubmission of manuscript reference No. WJS-07-5739 Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript originally entitled “Evaluation of the Glasgow prognostic score in patients undergoing curative resection for breast cancer liver metastases,” which we would like to resubmit for consideration for publication in the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. The reviewer’s comments were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments. Revisions in the manuscript are shown as highlighted text. In accordance with the first comment, the title has been revised and the entire manuscript has undergone substantial English editing. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.
Address editor personally
Manuscript ID number
Thank reviewers
Highlight major changes
Revisions
Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.
Response: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported values. We describe our new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function in our revised Results section (Page 6, Lines 12–18).
Agreeing with reviewers
Agreement
Revisions
Location
Revisions Disagreeing with reviewers
Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.
Response: Although a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al., 1998]. We have now explained the use of this function and the Smith model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2–6).
Evidence
Revisions
Location
Revisions “Unfair” reviewer comments
Reviewer comment: Currently, the authors’ conclusion that this gene is involved in heart development is not completely validated by their in vitro analyses. They should do additional in vivo experiments using a genetic mouse model to show that heart development is regulated by this gene.
Reasons why reviewers might make these comments
Current results are not appropriate for the scope or impact factor of the journal
Reviewer is being “unfair”
Revisions “Unfair” reviewer comments
What you should do:
Contact the journal editor and explain why you feel the reviewer is being unfair.
1. Do the experiments, revise, and resubmit to the same journal
2. Withdraw submission and resubmit current manuscript to a more appropriate journal
If rejected, what should you do?
Option 1: New submission to the same journal
Fully revise manuscript Prepare point-by-point responses Include the original manuscript ID number
Option 2: New submission to a different journal
Revise manuscript Reformat according to the author guidelines
If accepted, what’s next?
Promote your work on social networks • Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn
Respond to post-publication comments
Present your work at conferences • Allows you to discuss your work personally with your peers • Get feedback about your work and future directions • Networking and collaborations
Thank you!
Any questions?
Follow us on Twitter
@JournalAdvisor
Like us on Facebook
facebook.com/EdanzEditing
Download and further reading edanzediting.co.jp/kyushu_140724
Jeffrey Robens: [email protected] Andrew Jackson: [email protected]