Abd Karim Alias@2011
Getting your Manuscript Published
• Professor of Food Technology
• Survivor of many peer review processes since
1991
• Member of the editorial board of 4 journals (1
international & 3 nationals)
ABOUT ME
[email protected] OR [email protected]
Website: http://www.indtech.usm.my/karim/AKA/Home.html
Blog: onestoplearning.blogspot.com
• Duties of editors, reviewers, and authors
• What is “peer review” & brief history
• Objectives & process of peer review
• What editors & reviewers are looking for?
• Surviving the peer review process
• Conclusion: what leads to ACCEPTANCE
OUTLINE
4 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Getting Published – Challenges Ahead
Editors, Reviewers, Authors
5 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Editors Reviewers Authors
Duties of Editors, Reviewers, Authors
6 Abd Karim Alias@2011
• Publication decision
• Fair play
• Confidentiality
• Disclosure and conflicts
of interest
Editors Reviewers
• Contribution to Editorial
Decision
• Promptness
• Confidentiality
• Disclosure and conflicts
of Interest
Authors
• Reporting standards
• Data Access and Retention
• Originality and Plagiarism
• Multiple, Redundant or
Concurrent Publication
• Acknowledgement of
Sources
• Authorship of the Paper
7 Abd Karim Alias@2011
What is “peer review”
An evaluation process in which experts critique the
work of individuals or groups seeking recognition,
publication, or funding.
Peer review is…
8 Abd Karim Alias@2011
What is “peer review”
For the publishers…
They rely on effective peer review
processes to uphold not only the
quality and validity of individual
articles, but also the overall integrity
of the journals they publish.
9 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Objective of Peer Review Process
• Acts as a filter: Ensures research is properly
verified before being published
• Improves the quality of the research: rigorous
review by other experts helps to hone key points
and correct inadvertent errorsValidates and
confirms a researcher’s work
Two key functions…
10 Abd Karim Alias@2011
• An essential part of the publishing process
• Identify the strengths & weaknesses of ideas &
approaches
• Validates and confirms a researcher’s work
• Make recommendations for improvement
Other aims…
Objective of Peer Review Process
11 Abd Karim Alias@2011
A Brief History of Peer Review
• Review by peers has been a method of evaluation since ancient
Greece, although it was not standard practise in science until
the mid-20th century
• As early as the 17th century, scientific clubs (or societies) of
gentleman scholars argued over the origin and validity of
different theories and discoveries
• Peer review has been a formal part of scientific communication
since the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years
ago
12 Abd Karim Alias@2011
A Brief History of Peer Review
• Albert Einstein's "Annus Mirabilis" was not peer
reviewed except by the journal's editor in chief and co-
editor?
• Watson’s seminal paper on the structure of DNA was
rejected by the peer review process?
Did you know that…
13 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Types of Peer Review
1. Journal articles
2. Conference proceedings
3. Book manuscripts
4. Grant proposals
5. Teaching portfolios
6. Promotion decisions
7. Program accreditation
14 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Methods of Peer Review
1. Single blind -- authors do not know
the identity of the reviewers
2. Double blind – both authors and
reviewers do not know the identity
of each other.
Double-blinded review provides honest and
critical reviews without fear of retribution
15 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Peer review – a gatekeeper but not perfect…
Peer review is not a perfect process, but
it is one of the best ways of ensuring
the quality and originality of a paper.
Abd Karim Alias@OCTOBER 2011
RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO JOURNAL
Article rejected/feedback /changes requested
REVIEWER ASSESSES ARTICLE
REVIEWER MAKES RECOMMENDATION TO EDITOR
INFORM DECISION TO AUTHOR
EDITOR MAKES FINAL DECISION
First assessment by editor/editorial board – Ask – Does article fits aims/scope?
Is article of acceptable quality?
Check for: significance, novelty, presentation, scholarship,
evidence, reasoning, theory, experimental design, data
validation, organization, clarity, ethics
Article sent to reviewers
NO? YES?
Feedback /changes requested
Peer Review Process
If minor/major revision, authors can revise & resubmit
17 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Review process
• Pre-screening
• Is the manuscript within the scope of the
journal?
• Identification of reviewers
• Two or three reviewers
“Owing to the very simple ratios of the
number of submissions, the number of papers
we can publish in any given (monthly) issue,
and availability of reviewers, a large fraction
of papers submitted to ACS Nano must be
rejected without review. We receive far more
submissions than we could ever publish, and
thus it is a necessity”…
18 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Rejecting without review: The Whys, the Hows
“Rejecting without review: The Whys, the Hows" , ACS Nano, 4 (9), 4 9 6 3 – 4 9 6 4 (2 0 1 0)
Perspective: Some statistics
19 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Credit: Amazon.com
• Elsevier publishes more than 20 journals in
the food science area
• In 2010, more than 20,000 papers were
submitted to these journals
• In 2010, 5000 papers were published
in these journals
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Brazil
China
Malaysia
USA
2010
2006
17 Elsevier Food
Science Journals
USA: 37%
Malaysia: 196%
China: 136%
Brazil: 109%
Number of accepted papers
Perspective: Some statistics
% increase in accepted papers
2006-2010 for selected countries:
21 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Rejecting without review: The Whys, the Hows
“Rejecting without review: The Whys, the Hows" , ACS Nano, 4 (9), 4 9 6 3 – 4 9 6 4 (2 0 1 0)
Editors argue that…
• pre-screening ensures that only those manuscripts
that they believe to have potential to be published in
the journal reach the referees;
• lessening of the chances for a manuscript to dwell
unproductively in an unsuccessful cycle of peer
review
22 Abd Karim Alias@2011
What are Journal Editors looking for?
“Rejecting without review: The Whys, the Hows" , ACS Nano, 4 (9), 4 9 6 3 – 4 9 6 4 (2 0 1 0)
Editors are looking for…
• The “wow” factor -- a subject or theme that sheds light
on and gives insight into a perplexing problem or
fundamental issue;
• Novelty -- how original the work is.
• Clarity of presentation
• Value of practical, research, and theoretical implications
23 Abd Karim Alias@2011
What are Journal Editors looking for?
“Rejecting without review: The Whys, the Hows" , ACS Nano, 4 (9), 4 9 6 3 – 4 9 6 4 (2 0 1 0)
Editors are looking for…
• Manuscripts that have been written clearly,
concisely, and well and be in the correct format;
• Fit with the scope of the journal? -- the
appropriateness of the work for the journal.
• Citability -- the paper increase the journal’s
citation metrics?
24 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Importance of Cover Letter to Editor
“The Art of the Cover Letter" , ACS Nano, 4 (5), 2487 (2 0 1 0)
This is your chance to speak to the editor directly…
• Mention what would make your manuscript
special to the journal;
• The cover letter provides the chance for authors
to persuade the editors of the significance of
their work in a less formal manner than what is
written in the manuscript itself.
25 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Importance of Cover Letter to Editor
“The Art of the Cover Letter" , ACS Nano, 4 (5), 2487 (2 0 1 0)
It could be the difference between a
manuscript sent for external review
and one rejected without further
consideration!
26 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Some advices from Editors
Read “How to Choose a Journal”
"Some people who send papers ... simply send it to the
wrong journal and that's becoming increasingly the case ...
This can be frustrating as an Editor…
“I imagine there are some people who spend their life
sending their papers to journals that don't want to publish
them, not because they're not good papers but because
they're just in the wrong place."
27 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Reviewer’s report
The ‘bad’ one liked it but it was really
superficial – I don’t think they
understood it. The ‘good’ one didn’t like it
much, but the review was just
wonderful…
One bad review, one good review…
28 Abd Karim Alias@2011
The best reviewer report
…provides a thoughtful and insightful
synopsis of the major points,
strengths, and weaknesses of the
Manuscript reviewed.
“The best referee report" , ACS Nano, 2(2), 177 (2008)
29 Abd Karim Alias@2011
The best reviewer report…cont’
• the importance and broad interest of the subject
• the novelty and importance of the work described
• the extent to which data support the conclusions
made
• the quality of the data and the analysis presented
…comments on…
30 Abd Karim Alias@2011
The best reviewer report…cont’
• the completeness of the citations
• the clarity of the writing
• the appropriateness of the work for the journal
…comments on…
31 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Typical reviewer’s comments
• Lack of clarity in writing/presentation (poor
organization)
• Logic of argument is unclear/vague
• Author is unaware of relevant existing work
• Author misinterprets existing research/theory
32 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Typical reviewer’s comments
• Flawed experimental design
• Data is not convincing/flawed
• Contribution to theory, research, and/or practice is
not apparent.
33 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Editor’s advice to reviewers
Be critical!
Read the abstract first to see if what the authors are
stating makes logical sense, and if it is written in a
way that is comprehensible;
Is the observation made and reported in the
manuscript something new?
34 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Editor’s advice to reviewers
Examine tables and figures to see if the legends are
clear and if the tables and figures demonstrate the
same thing that is stated in the text;
Look to see if the statistical analysis seems to make
sense;
Examine the methods to make sure that the authors
knew what they were doing;
35 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Editor’s advice to reviewers
Read the discussion and see if it makes sense and if it
reflects what the data in the article report. Look for
unnecessary conjecture or unfounded conclusions that
are not based on the evidence presented
Is the manuscript concise and well organized?
36 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Editor’s advice to reviewers
Is the manuscript full of typographical errors and/or mistakes
in references that imply a sloppy job of putting the
manuscript together?
Subjectively, do you believe what the authors are telling you
or do you suspect some consistent error in the hypothesis,
methods, analysis of data, etc.? Is there some chance that
there is scientific fraud or plagiarism involved in this
manuscript?
37 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Recommendation of Reviewers
Rejected due to poor quality, or out of scope
Accept without revision
Accept but needs revision (either major or minor)
If revision is required, reviewers would
clearly identify what aspects need
attention/revision.
Sample of peer reviewer form
38 Abd Karim Alias@2011
What “revision” means?
The editors believe that your article contained information of
potential importance but a number of major issues were raised.
If you believe that you can address the issues raised, the editors
would be willing to reconsider your manuscript, but cannot
guarantee acceptance, particularly if you cannot address the
concerns.
Major Revision
39 Abd Karim Alias@2011
What “revision” means?
The editors found your manuscript potentially
acceptable for publication provided you make some
minor adjustments
Minor revision
40 Abd Karim Alias@2011
3 key reason for recommending a manuscript
• The manuscript was considered timely and
relevant to a current problem
• The manuscript was considered well written,
logical, and easy to comprehend
• The study was well designed and had appropriate
methodology
See also “Criteria set by the journal to consider acceptance”
41 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Surviving the peer review
42 Abd Karim Alias@2011
• Put yourself in the reviewer’s shoes
• Develop a well organized, clearly written
manuscript
• Write for an intelligent but not necessarily expert
reader
• Assume you are addressing individuals with
different types/levels of expertise
Surviving the peer review
43 Abd Karim Alias@2011
• Be your own worst critic
• Would an “non-expert” understand why your work is
important?
• Have you clearly communicated your ideas &
methods?
• Are your claims justifiable?
• Do your conclusions logically follow from your
findings?
Surviving the peer review
44 Abd Karim Alias@2011
When your paper is rejected…
Good advice on what to do when paper get
rejected (link)
45 Abd Karim Alias@2011
What leads to acceptance…
Attention to details
Check and double check your work
Consider the reviewers’ comments
English must be as good as possible
Presentation is important
Take your time with revision
Acknowledge those who have helped you
New, original and previously unpublished
Critically evaluate your own manuscript
Ethical rules must be obeyed
Nigel John Cook
Editor-in-Chief, Ore Geology Reviews
Before submitting an article make sure it is as
good as you can make it.
Not only because it makes YOUR life easy…but also
the lives of the Editors and Reviewers
46 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Why is it important to write a good paper?
…your chances of acceptance will be increased!
Don’t submit “half-
baked” manuscript!
47 Abd Karim Alias@2011
Why is it important to write a good paper?
An international editor says: The following problems appear much too frequently:
• Submission of papers which are clearly out of scope
• Failure to format the paper according to the Guide for Authors
• Inappropriate (or no) suggested reviewers
• Inadequate response to reviewers
• Inadequate standard of English
• Resubmission of rejected manuscripts without revision
Paul Haddad, Editor, Journal of Chromatography A
48
An international editor says:
49
…and my own publishing advice is:
• Submit to the right journal
• Submit to one journal only
• Do not submit “salami” articles
• Pay attention to journal requirements and structure
• Check the English
• Pay attention to ethical standards
• Ask your colleagues to proof read the article
• Be self-critical
50 Abd Karim Alias@2011