22.07.2015

1

Reviewing for journals

Doctoral Summer School 2015

Dr. Andreas Zins, MODUL University Vienna

Editor-in-Chief, IJCTHR

[with excerpts from webinars of Elsevier Publishing Campus]

Peer review - definition

• a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sureit meets the necessary standards before it ispublished or accepted

(Merriam-Webster)

2

22.07.2015

2

Before you accept or decline

• Motivation • Your area of expertise?• Potential conflict of interest?• Enough time?• Familiarize yourself with the peer reviewprocess of the journal

3

Peer Review: why would you volunteer to review

• „Give“• Academic duty

• „Take“•General interest in the area•Keep up-to-dat with the latest developments•Helps with own research and/or stimulatenew ideas•Builds association with prestigious journalsand editors•Aware of new research before others are•Career development

4

22.07.2015

3

Why Peer review?

5

Reasons for Declining to Review

6

22.07.2015

4

What do researchers want as authors and as readers?

7

Certification Function

8

22.07.2015

5

Purpose of Peer Review: Gaps

9

Types of Peer Review

10

22.07.2015

6

Identification of Peer Reviewers

Reviewer database of the journal

Editorial board members of the journal

Other databases Scopus, PubMed, …

Specific tools provided by the journal publisher E.g. Elsevier‘s Find Reviewers Tool

Suitable reviewers proposed by the authors But not from their own inner circle

11

Peer Review is based on trust

The peer review process which in essence determineswhat becomes the public record of science is based on trust Trust between authors and editors

Trust between editors and reviewers

12

22.07.2015

7

Privileged Document

The manuscript you review is a confidential document. The content is and remains the exclusive property of the

authors.

You should not disclose it to others Who may use the information in their own research

If you have printed the manuscript You must keep it confidential until the review process has

been completed

After the final decision by the editor you must destroy it.

If you have shared responsibility for the review with a colleague you must provide that person‘s name andaffiliation to the editor.

13

Take-home MessagesFind out the value of the manuscript!

14

22.07.2015

8

The Peer Review Process - Overview

15

The Peer Review Process (I)

16

Regular articles are initially reviewed by at least tworeviewers

When invited, the reviewer receives the Abstract of themanuscript

The editor generally requests that the article be reviewedwithin 2 – 4 weeks

Articles are revised until the two reviewers agree on eitheracceptance or rejection, or until the editor decides that thereviewer comments have been addressed satisfactorily

The reviewer reports help the Editors to reach a decisionon a submitted paper The reviewer is the one who recommends; the editor decides!

22.07.2015

9

The Peer Review Process (II)

17

If a report has not been received after 4 weeks, theEditorial office contacts the reviewer

If there is a notable disagreement between the reports ofthe reviewers, a 3rd (or even 4th) reviewer may beconsulted

The anonymity of the reviewers is strictly maintained Unless a reviewer asks to have his/her identity made known

to the authors

The Peer Review Process (III)

18

Reviewers must not communicate directly with authors

All manuscripts and supplementary material must betreated confidentially by editors and reviewers

The aim is to have a „first decision“ to the authors within 4 –6 weeks after submission of the manuscript

Meeting these schedule objectives requires a significanteffort on the part of the Editorial staff, Editor and Reviewers

If reviewers treat authors as they themselves would like tobe treated as authors, then these objectives can be met.

22.07.2015

10

Issues reviewers look into:

19

What reviewers are NOT asked to do

20

Reviewers are NOT asked to Act as copy editors of the manuscript

Detect plagiarism, fraud and other ethics issues

These remain the authors‘ responsibilities Deficiencies can result in manuscript rejection

Or worse

22.07.2015

11

General impression and abstract

Look at the manuscript as a whole General comprehension of the manuscript

Language/style/grammar

Structure

Level of enthusiasm

Is the Abstract included? Is it a real summary of the paper?

Does it include the key results?

Does it contain unnecessary information?

Journals set a limit for the number of words, is the abstracttoo long?

21

Introduction

Is it effective, clear, and well organized?

Does it really introduce and put into perspective whatfollows?

Suggest changes in organization and point authors toapproprite citations if necessary

Be as specific as possible when giving feedback

22

22.07.2015

12

Assessing the methodology

Can a colleague reproduce the results?

Is the description of new methodology complete andaccurate?

Did the authors include proper references to previsoulypublished methodology?

Is the sample size large enough and was it selected in an appropriate way?

Was the data collected in accordance with acceptedpractice?

Could or should the authors have inlcuded supplementarymaterial?

23

Results and discussion (I)

Suggsst improvements in the way data is shown

Comment on general logic and on justification ofinterpretations and conclusions

Comment on the number of figures, tabes, and schemes

Write concisely and precisely which changes yourecommend

24

22.07.2015

13

Results and discussion (II)

List suggested style/grammar changes and other smallchanges separately

Suggest additional experiments or analyses

Make clear the need for changes/updates

Ask yourself whether the manuscript is worth beingpublished

25

Assessing the conclusions

Comment on importance, validity, and generality ofconclusions

Request toning down of unjustified claims andgeneralizations

Request removal of redundancies and summaries

The Abstract, not the Conclusion, summarizes the study

26

22.07.2015

14

References, tables, and figures

Check accuracy, number, and appropriateness of citations

Comment on tables and figures, and their quality andreadability

Comment on any footnotes

Assess completeness of legends, headers, and axis labels

Comment on need for color in figures

Check presentation consistency

27

References: tools for reviewers

Free access to ScienceDirect (all content published byElsevier)

Free access to Scopus (the world‘s largest abstract andcitation database

Reference-linking in PDF of the manuscript

28

22.07.2015

15

Reviewer report – For the authors

General impression Before commenting on parts of the manuscript, the reviewer

is asked to add a short summary and general impression ofthe article Ist imorance, language/style/grammar, and general level of

enthusiasm

Major comments Important issue that, in the opinion of the reviewer, must be

addressed by the authors before the manuscript is suitablefor publication

Minor comments Anything else worth mentioning

29

Reviewer report – For the editor

Comment on the novelty and significance

Recommend whether the manuscript is suitable forpublication or not, usually Accept

minor revision

Major revision

Reject

Must be consistent with comments for authors

These comments will not be disclosed to the author(s)!

30

22.07.2015

16

Reviewer checklist – For the editor

31

Outcomes

32

22.07.2015

17

Editor’s view: What makes a good reviewer?

Provides an objective, thorough, and comprehensivereport

Provides well-founded comments for authors

Gives constructive criticism

Provides a clear recommendation to the Editor

Submits the report on time

33

Role and tasks of reviewer

The peer review process is based on trust

The scientific publishing enterprise depends largely on thequality and integrity of the reviewers

Reviewers should write reports in a collegial andconstructive manner

Reviewers should treat all manuscripts in the same manner they would like their own manuscript to be treated

34