20140724 edanz kyushu session 8

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



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



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.



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%


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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]

20140724 edanz kyushu session 8

Education