aps march meeting, tutorial for authors & referees (san antonio)
TRANSCRIPT
3/4/15
1
Panelists Ronald Dickman (PRE) Saad Hebboul (PRL) Manolis Antonoyiannakis (PRB)
Moderator Lance Cooper (University of Illinois)
Tutorial for Authors & Referees
APS March MeeLng 2015 San Antonio, TX
Outline
2
1. The peer review process in a nutshell (1) 2. Tutorial for Authors (10)
1. Manuscript preparaLon (3) 2. RejecLon Without External Review (1) 3. To Resubmit or Not to Resubmit? That is the quesLon… (3) 4. Typical misunderstandings & faulty arguments in corresponding
with the editors (2) 5. Useful resources (1)
3. Tutorial for Referees (4) 1. How do editors select referees? (1) 2. Referee reports (3)
3/4/15
2
Review process at Physical Review
peer review
internal review (by editor)
review by Editorial Board Member (EBM)
Appeal to Editor in Chief(procedural only)
Appeal to Editor
3rd round (if needed)
2nd round
1st round
New paper
Review process in a nutshell
3
Manuscript preparaLon
BEFORE writing your paper: • Audience. PRL vs. PR. Style. • Take-home message. Clarity. • Authorship vs. acknowledgment.
WHEN submitting your paper: • Additional information for editors & referees • Suggested referees. Conflict of interest. • Other relevant information • Cover letter: Justification.
4
3/4/15
3
Manuscript preparaLon
Title: Concise, accurate, informative Abstract: Problem under study and main findings Intro: Problem, background, motivation, importance, findings
Methods: Theory, experiment design, derivations, etc. Results: Findings, plots, fits, measurements, uncertainties, assumptions
Discussion and Conclusions: Summary, take-home message, open questions, impact
Acknowledgments: Organization and people Reference list: Relevant or related papers
5
How to submit?
Important aspects of the paper: • Title, abstract, introducLon, conclusion, references • A good cover le\er (not the abstract again!)
Ac1ons to take before submi6ng: • Proofread. • Check with less involved colleagues. • Proper literature search (right journal?) • Suggest referees (including new refs.)
6
3/4/15
4
What is it? An editorial rejecLon le\er, upon iniLal receipt, with editors’ judgment of impact / innovaLon / interest / significance / importance Why? To preserve Lme & effort of referees (our most precious resource)… … and help authors find a be\er-‐suited journal with minimal delay How do editors decide? Red flags that may warrant editorial rejecLon -‐ Sloppy presentaLon, opaque wriLng / too much jargon & acronyms -‐ abstract too technical; non-‐understandable by non-‐specialists -‐ introducLon: lacks clarity, no context, excessive self-‐referencing, poorly describes prior work, no broad picture -‐ inadequate referencing: too many old / specialized / self-‐ / ‘confined’ references -‐ no punch-‐line in conclusions:
à what is the main message of the paper? à why is it important? à how does it advance the field?
RejecLon Without External Review (RWER)
7
To resubmit or not? That is the quesLon…
• Should I resubmit my paper?
• How can I make an effective resubmission?
Ø Answer all criticismØ Be factual & collegial Ø Include notes to the editor if needed
Resubmission letter: Convince the editor that your paper deserves further consideration
8
3/4/15
5
To resubmit or not? That is the quesLon…
• Should I resubmit my paper?
• How can I make an effective resubmission?
Ø Answer all criticismØ Be factual & collegial Ø Include notes to the editor if needed
Resubmission letter: Convince the editor that your paper deserves further consideration
Anecdote # 1 After receiving 1st decision letter from editor: ------------------------------------------------------ “The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees. The resulting reports include a critique which is sufficiently adverse that we cannot accept your paper on the basis of material now at hand. We append pertinent comments. If you feel that you can overcome or refute the criticism, you may resubmit to Physical Review Letters. With any resubmittal, please include a summary of changes made and a brief response to all recommendations and criticisms.” ------------------------------------------------------ Graduate Student: I guess we should submit this elsewhere L PhD Advisor: We are almost “in”! J
9
As seen from the authors’ perspecLve -‐ Referee comments wrong / unjusLfied? à RRR -‐ Referee does not understand my paper? à RRR -‐ Referee biased / unfair / has compeLng interest? à RRR -‐ Editor wrongly sides with the criLcal referee? à RRR -‐ Referee asks me to cite irrelevant papers? à RRR -‐ Editor does not provide clear yes/no decision? à RRR -‐ Editor does not firmly reject my paper? à RRR
Revise, Respond & Resubmit (RRR): A common[*] 1st-‐round remedy
10 [*] But not universal. See next slide.
3/4/15
6
However, please keep in mind that the Editors need a clear reason to publish
à Try to be a stricter judge for your paper than the referees / editors would be
à Ask yourself (honestly):
Would it be a mistake for the editors NOT to publish your paper?
11
However, please keep in mind that the Editors need a clear reason to publish
à Try to be a stricter judge for your paper than the referees / editors would be
à Ask yourself (honestly):
Would it be a mistake for the editors NOT to publish your paper?
12
Anecdote # 2 Referee C, acting as adjudicator, is critical & wants substantive changes. ------------------------------------------------------ A few weeks after reviewing the paper, Referee C moves at authors’ institution as a visiting scholar. He happens to share an office with the grad student who wrote the paper. He is present when the student receives the editorial decision with the referee report. The student is devastated. ------------------------------------------------------ Graduate Student: Oh no! The referee is trashing my paper. He/she says it is not suitable for Physical Review B. L Referee C (concealing his identity): Let’s read more into this report. Is it really that negative? J
3/4/15
7
Typical misunderstandings & faulty arguments When corresponding with editors
This subject is very important, so you should publish my paper.
Not every paper on an important topic warrants publicaLon in a high-‐profile journal The broader subject may have broad interest, but what about this paper?
The referee found no mistake, (s)he only said it is not interesLng.
Two referees recommend publicaLon, only one does not.
Many papers on this topic have been published in PRL, see ....
Correctness is necessary but not sufficient for publicaLon.
So what? Look at what the referee said. It is the content of a report that ma\ers, not the vote.
So, enough already. This is an argument against publicaLon, not for publicaLon...
13
I am en/tled to two rounds of review and expect the editor to have another two referees look at my paper
Although two rounds of review are common, they are not guaranteed.
I have published 123 papers and have an h-‐index of 42. How can the editor reject my paper?
The editor has no research experience in this field. How can they reject my paper without external review?
You published that prior paper which is clearly less sophisLcated than ours
We are mindful of the authors’ prior record, especially in borderline cases. But we focus on the paper at hand.
The editor approaches the paper as a general reader, and over Lme, builds considerable experience. Also, she may have discussed the paper with (a) other editorial colleagues, or (b) with an Editorial Board Member.
Peer review is a complex & imperfect process. Journals are ‘distribuLons’: some papers clearly deserved publicaLon, others barely made it. Maybe the prior paper was in a field that was hot at the Lme, and the bar was lower. Etc.
Typical misunderstandings & faulty arguments
3/4/15
8
Useful resources for authors (1) “Whitesides’ Group: Wri/ng a Paper”, George M. Whitesides, Advanced
Materials 16, 1375 (2004) A classic paper on how to write scien/fic papers that every researcher should read. (2) “What Editors Want”, Lynn Worsham, The Chronicle of Higher Educa/on,
September 8, 2008 h\p://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/09/2008090801c.htm A journal editor reveals the most common mistakes academics make when they submit manuscripts. (3) Strunk and White, The Elements of Style (MacMillan:New York 1979, 3rd ed.
So successful that it is known not by its /tle but as “The LiLle Book”.
Check out APS tutorials on authoring & refereeing Some editorial talks are found on internet (Google search)
We look for referees in: • references (authors of, referees of)• related papers in Web of Science, Google Scholar, SPIN, NASA, APS database (authors, citing papers)• suggested referees• referee expertise in APS database (>60,000 referees)• mental database
We generally avoid:• Undesirable referees• Coauthors (current or previous)• Referees at same institution as authors• Acknowledged persons• Direct competitors (if known)• Busy referees (currently reviewing for PR/PRL)• Overburdened referees (> 15 mss/past year)• Consistently slow referees (>8 weeks to review)• Referees who consistently provide poor reports
How do the editors find referees for a paper?
16
3/4/15
9
Referee reports -Review the manuscript
-General comments -Technical details -Recommendation
Tips:
• Avoid contradictions within a report. • Be collegial and polite. • Can provide confidential comments for the editor only. • If you realize you are non-expert or too busy to review, alert the editor immediately • OK to pass paper to more qualified colleague (but let editors know) • If you have a conflict of interest, alert the editor • If you are qualified to review only a part of the paper, alert the editor
17
Preparing a Referee Report 1) Summarize paper: Show that you understand
the manuscript and the problem under study
2) Technical details: • Validity • Technical problems or comments • Improvements needed • Reference list • Style issues • Conciseness of presentaLon
3) RecommendaLon: • Accept, reject, revise and resubmit, etc. • Support recommendaLon
Tips:
• Avoid
contradicLons within a report. • Be collegial and polite. • Comments solely intended for the editor?
18
3/4/15
10
WriLng reports
Referee’s role: Advise editors & help authors to improve their papers
Ø Summarize resultØ Address respective journal’s publication criteriaØ Answer editor’s specific queriesØ Back up claims (e.g., if it’s been done, give
references)Ø Be diplomatic
19
20
Thank YOU for supporLng our journals
as authors & referees (and readers!)
Acknowledgments: Various APS editors for their slides
(Hernan Rozenfeld, Deniz van Heijnsbergen, and others)
3/4/15
11
• InfluenLal papers oten controversial • Experts’ judgment not always faultless Example: • In 10 out of the top-‐20 cited papers in PRL (published in 1991-‐2000 in plasmonics, photonic crystals and negaLve refracLon) at least one (& someLmes both) reports were negaLve in the 1st round of review
Challenges for Editors
21
The editors’ role: to conduct an impartial & thorough scientific review
Editors are not technical experts (in general)⇓
but they do strive to make sure that:- no obvious conflicts of interest occur- referees are experts in the field they review- reports are detailed and substantiated- response of authors is complete, dispassionate, and substantiated- review process is timely (*)- review process is converging to a yes/no decision- no special groups are favored/discriminated against
(*) this has many direct implicaLons 22
3/4/15
12
Editorial constraints: time vs. depth of review
11500 submissions to PRL in 2008Staff: 12 full time editors
950 manuscripts / editor / year4 new manuscripts / editor / workdayAverage time per manuscript ≤ 2 hrs
(a highly uneven distribution)
23
George Whitesides on wriLng a paper
è
h\p://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1305035664639/Whitesides-‐ACS-‐WriLng-‐a-‐ScienLfic-‐Paper.pdf
h\ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3mrRH2aS98
______________________________________________________________________