getting your manuscript published -- what reviewers and editors want

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

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.indtech.usm.my/karim/AKA/Home.html



• 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


Editors Reviewers Authors

Duties of Editors, Reviewers, Authors


• 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


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…


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.


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…


• 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


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


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…


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


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


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


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”…


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)

WHAT EDITOR AND REVIEWER WANTS/Rejecting without Review-- The Whys, the.pdf

Perspective: Some statistics


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:


Rejecting without review: The Whys, the Hows


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



What are Journal Editors looking for?


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



What are Journal Editors looking for?


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?



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.

WHAT EDITOR AND REVIEWER WANTS/The Art of the Cover Letter.pdf


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!



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."

http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/preparation/choosing.asp


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…


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)

WHAT EDITOR AND REVIEWER WANTS/The best referee report.pdf


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…


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…


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


Typical reviewer’s comments

• Flawed experimental design

• Data is not convincing/flawed

• Contribution to theory, research, and/or practice is

not apparent.


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?



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;



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?



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?


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

WHAT EDITOR AND REVIEWER WANTS/Sample_peer_review_form.pdf


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


What “revision” means?

The editors found your manuscript potentially

acceptable for publication provided you make some

minor adjustments

Minor revision


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”

WHAT EDITOR AND REVIEWER WANTS/Criteria set by the journal to consider acceptance.doc


Surviving the peer review


• 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



• 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?



When your paper is rejected…

Good advice on what to do when paper get

rejected (link)

WHAT EDITOR AND REVIEWER WANTS/Good advice on what to do when paper get rejected.pdf


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


Why is it important to write a good paper?

…your chances of acceptance will be increased!

Don’t submit “half-

baked” manuscript!


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