academic+publishing+ +peer+review

8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review

1/17

Academic Publishing & Peer Review

Readings on Sakai:

Furguson & Heene, 2012; Suls & Martin, 2009


2/17

How Research is Disseminated

Personal contact (in-person, e-mail, talks by invitedspeakers, listservs)

Presentations at professional meetings

Posters

Talks or symposia (often15-20 minutes per speaker) Publications that are not peer reviewed

Chapters

Some less prestigious journals

Peer-reviewed journal publication

(see Chapter 16 in the textbook for an

overview)


3/17


4/17

Publishing in a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Step 1: Select the Journal

Fit with the journal: Social psychology alone has over60 journals (in addition to clinical, cognitive,developmental, neuroscience, and interdisciplinaryjournals)

Journals are ranked by impact factor(the number of

citations received by the average article in thatjournal)

Top-tier journals reject >80% of submittedmanuscripts!

Example impact factors over 5 years Science = 33.6

Annual Review of Psychology = 23.3

Psychological Bulletin = 18.1

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology = 6.9=


5/17


Step 2: Peer Review

Key figures: author(s), editor, reviewers

1. Author submits the paper to the editor of a relevantjournal.

2. Editor quickly checks to make sure that the paper isappropriate (~60% are rejected [triaged] at thisstage).

3. Editor sends a copy of the paper to 3-5 reviewerswho are experts in the area.

4. Each reviewer reads and critiques the paper andsends a written review to the editor.

5. The editor reads the paper and the reviews, makes adecision, and provides feedback.


6/17

Editorial Decisions

Ultimately, decisions are the responsibility of theeditor

The editor may decide to: accept the paper as it is with no revisions requested.

(This almost never happens

!only ~2% of the time) accept the paper for publication contingent on the author

making minor revisions.

ask the author to revise and resubmitthe manuscript itfor further consideration. Then, the editor may:

decide to approve or reject her- or himself send the manuscript back to the original reviewers

send the manuscript to a new set of reviewers

reject the paper with no opportunity for resubmission tothat particular journal.


7/17

Why peer review?

Filter out research that includes major: methodological flaws

statistical flaws

unaddressed limitations or inappropriate conclusions

Provide feedback and allow authors to improve the

paper

Prioritize research that is novel and contributes to

the research literature


8/17


Step 3: Copy Editing / Press

Copy editors check for errors in APA format, wording,grammar, etc.

After changes, the manuscript is in press

Some journals quickly post articles online

It usually takes several months (up to a year!) untilthe article appears in print


9/17

Approximate Research timelines

Collect data and prepare manuscript (at least 1 year) Write the manuscript (several months)

Submit and wait for feedback (about 3 months)

Editor identifies reviewers (1-2 weeks)

Reviewers provide feedback (3-6 weeks)

Editor makes a decision and sends feedback (0-4 weeks)

If not rejected, respond to feedback and wait for

round 2 (several months, possibly a year to collect

more data!)

Copyediting (1-2 months)

In press (up to a year before print)The research you see in print began at least 2 years

ago!


10/17

Serving as a Peer-Reviewer


11/17


12/17

A high quality review

Demonstrates understanding Start with a brief summary of the manuscript

Make sure you understand the paper! Be specific and

accurate.

Is appropriately critical Are there major methodological or statistical flaws?

Are there other interpretations of the results?

Are there limitations that should be acknowledged?3

Is balanced

Highlight the positives and the contribution of the paper

Interpret negatives in a broader, balanced manner

Clearly distinguishes between majorand minorissues


13/17

Writing a review

First paragraph: Begin by summarizing (perhaps in just 2 sentences) what you

see as the major theme of the paper.

To what extent does this theme contribute to the literature?

Provide an overall assessment of the manuscript.

The next several sections should back up the overallassessment by addressing majorconcerns with thepaper, including: Major methodological or statistical issues

Potential artifacts or plausible alternative explanations

Inappropriate conclusions

Finally, you might address minor concerns and(optionally) comments on grammar or writing.


14/17

What you might address in the review

Does the introduction provide an appropriate review ofthe relevant literature? Are any major papers or theoriesomitted that should be addressed?

Are the hypotheses logically derived from the backgroundmaterial?

Are the methods and statistical analyses appropriate fortesting the research question?

Are the data analyzed appropriately? Is everythingreported and interpreted sufficiently?

Is the discussion appropriate? Do the authors go beyondthe data in their interpretations? Do they appropriatelyaddress major limitations and alternative explanations?

Is the manuscript longer than it needs to be?


15/17

Example Reviews


16/17

Problems with Peer Review and Publication

Publication biasnonsignificant results are difficultto publish

Due to null hypothesis significance testing, null results are

difficult to interpret (no effect? low power? problem with

the manipulation?)

Authors can easily rationalize and dismiss a single null

result.

As a result, nonsignificant findings are often filed away

and are not visible (the file drawer effect)

Meta-analysis helps, but it is difficult (maybe impossible)to identify all unpublished studies

Some editors or reviewers are inexperienced,

biased, or overly negative


17/17

Potential Solutions to Problems with Peer

Review

Open Access journals (e.g., PLOS ONE) Authors (or Universities or grants) pay publication fees

rather than libraries or consumers

Articles are often posted online, speeding publication

PLOS ONE reviews based on methodological soundnessrather than novelty or statistical significance

Ongoing, public review

academic+publishing+ +peer+review

Documents