REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTSTIPS FOR REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS IN

PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS

Bruce Lubotsky Levin, DrPH, MPHAssociate Professor & Head

Dept. of Community & Family HealthUniversity of South Florida

AUTHOR PERSPECTIVE OF PEER REVIEW PROCESS

LIFE CYCLE OF A MANUSCRIPT

AuthorSubmission

Editorial Processing

Blind Peer Review

Editorial Decision

Revise, Reject, or

Publish

Revision

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

• Editorial Screening…• Does the topic fit the

scope & aim of journal?

• Some papers are rejected here, called “desk rejection”…

MANUSCRIPT SUBMITTED

• 2 - 4 experts reviewer paper & provide feedback for author(s) and Editor…

PEER REVIEW

• Author(s) may revise & re-submit if asked by the Editor

• Final copyediting…

TO PUBLISH: YES OR NO?

WHY PEER REVIEW?

1731 Society of Edinburgh, G.B. Consensus Building Process Build Specific Knowledge Base Publish best quality papers Original Contributions: Detect plagiarism or fraud Internal, External, Blind Reviews

WHO SHOULD PEER REVIEW?

WHY SHOULD YOUREVIEW MANUSCRIPTS?

Read latest research in public health Read examples of good & horrible papers! Improves your own manuscript writing! Add manuscript reviewing to C.V.!

TYPES OF PAPERS

Varies by Journal & Academic Discipline

Original Research Brief Report/Special Report Literature Review/Meta-analysis Policy Perspective Letter to the Editor

Before You Start…

Should I accept this review invitation?

Do I…

Have the expertise?

Have the time to complete a

thoughtful review?

DETERMINE WHETHER TO REVIEW

Adequate Time to Review Sufficient Expertise

Focus Area Literature Methodology including statistical/qualitative

Conflict of Interest Familiar with Journal & Referencing Style Familiar with Journal Readers

REVIEWER DUTIES

Provide critical assessment of research Maintain confidentiality Avoid conflicts of interest Accept reviews only in area(s) of expertise Agree to review only if deadline can be met Report suspected plagiarism, fraud or ethical

concerns to Editor Write review in a collegial, constructive manner

EVALUATE MANUSCRIPTScience Manuscript

Relevant topic

Clearly stated objectives

Appropriate methodology

Good data analysis

Reasonable conclusions

High readability

Good structure

Logical flow

Appropriate & current

references

Comments to the Editor Comments to Author(s)

Provide summary of your decision & general comments

Is the paper suitable to journal?

Any major problems?

Accept/revise/reject?

Summarize study in one paragraph

Clear objectives?

Methods reasonable?

Data analyses & results

Study limitations presented

Conclusions/Implications important?

Reviewer Comments

SPECIFIC FEEDBACK Avoid…

Insufficient data Inappropriate method Old database Over-interpretation of

results References old Problems with writing

style

Be negative, demeaning, or sarcastic

Include personal comments Include identifying

information Try to change the manuscript

too much

Reviewer Comments (con’t.)

Decision of the EditorSELECT ONE

ACCEPT AS IS

• Indicates the manuscript can be published without any corrections or revisions.

• Rarely, if ever, the first decision rendered.

ACCEPT WITH MINOR

REVISIONS• Indicates the

manuscript can be published with small corrections.

• Sometimes this is an editor-only decision; a peer reviewer would select “revise” in this case.

REVISE & RE-REVIEW

• Indicates the manuscript needs re-writing or clarification.

• Indicates you would like to review the manuscript after revisions.

REVISE & DO NOT RE-REVIEW

• Indicates the manuscript needs re-writing or clarification.

• Indicates the manuscript may only need minor revisions to be published or that you are unable/unwilling to review again.

REJECT

• Indicates the manuscript will not be considered for publication.

• Often, editors will include peer review notes to strengthen the manuscript for- re-submission at another journal.

Sample Reviewer FormManuscript information

Scoring card

Comments

to author

Comments to Editor

Provides thorough review Submits review on time Familiar with literature in field Provides specific & helpful

comments Gives constructive criticism &

objective review Provides a clear

recommendation to the editor

FINALLY, HOW WAS THE REVIEW?

• Ask the Editor• Review a manuscript with your

academic advisor• Join/start a journal club in the

COPH, MCH, HE, or Behavioral Health student organization

REFERENCES• Cham, J. The academic review process [Image]. PhD Comics. Available online at:

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1760. Accessed on July 27, 2015.

• Harris, S. Then a miracle occurs [Image]. S. Harris Cartoon Gallery. Available online at: http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php. Accessed on July 24, 2015.

• Provenzale JM, Stanley RJ. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2005; 185(4): 848-854.

• Spigt M, Arts ICW. How to review a manuscript. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2010; 63(12): 1385-1390.

REFERENCES (con’t.)

• The peer review process [Image]. Available online at: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16. Accessed on July 27, 2015.

• The peer review process final round [Image]. European Association of Science Editors. Available online at: https://journalofhumannutritionanddieteticseditor.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/peer-review_process1.jpg. Accessed on July 27, 2015.

• Yang, J. Peer review [Image]. Available online at: https://handygrammar.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/peerreview.jpg. Accessed on July 21, 2015.