Peer review
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Positive process
• Experts give their advice on how you can improve your
study and ...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Peer review models
Blind
Double-blind
Open
Transferable
Reviewer is anonymous to th...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review What reviewers
are evaluating
The study
Relevant
hypothesis
• Your aims address an ...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Methodology
• Good experimental design
• Appropriate up-to-date methods
• Proper co...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Data
• Important results
• Supportive of the hypothesis
• Clearly presented
• Prope...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Conclusions
• Based only on presented data
• Not based on assumptions
• Relevant fo...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
The manuscript
Presentation
Logical flow of information
• Why it needs to be done
•...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review What reviewers
are evaluating
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
The manuscript
Structure
• Properly formatted
• Clearly labeled figures
• Carefully...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
The manuscript
References
• Up-to-date
• Broadly cited worldwide
• Avoid self-citat...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
The manuscript
Readability
• Correct spelling and grammar
• Clearly communicate you...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Resubmission
Should you resubmit to the same journal?
Can I answer all the reviewer...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Should you resubmit to the same journal?
Can I answer all the reviewer comments and...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Unclear decision letter
30 August 2014
Dear Dr. Robens,
Manuscript ID NRL-11-7839: ...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
 The Reviewer comments are not entirely negative.
 It is not possible to consider...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
We cannot publish your manuscript
Your study does not contain novel results that me...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review Why send an unclear
decision letter?
Publication time
Long revisions = long publica...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Clear decision letter
10 November 2015
Dear Dr. Robens,
Manuscript ID 10.1007/s1085...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
…You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of t...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Highlight the text
Respond to every reviewer comment
Easy to see
changes
Refer to l...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Fernando L. Cônsoli
Editor-in-Chief
Neotropical Entomology
2 September 2013
Dear Dr...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen
to use a somewhat ob...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen
to use a somewhat ob...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen
to use a somewhat ob...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Reviewer comment: Currently, the authors’ conclusion that this
gene is involved in ...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review “Unfair” reviewer
comments
What you should do
First, contact the journal editor if
...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Reviewer comment: The authors looked for polymorphisms in the
promoter region of th...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review
Reviewer comment: The authors looked for polymorphisms in the
promoter region of th...
Coverage and
Staffing Plan
Peer review If rejected, what
should you do?
Option 1: New submission to the same journal
 Ful...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

20130927 Edanz Peer Review

356 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
356
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
44
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Emphasize how peer review is a positive process, and helps advance the field by only allowing papers that others can build on be published.
  • Emphasize how peer review is a positive process, and helps advance the field by only allowing papers that others can build on be published.
  • Here I try to emphasize “This is why we stressed that you clearly discuss this in your abstract and intro…” Same for the other slides. Help link the Manuscript Structure presentation with this one.
  • About ‘self-citations’, emphasize it is okay to cite your own work WHEN it is relevant. However, you should not cite work from your lab to boost the lab’s citations if the articles are not relevant.

    Please describe “seminal”…landmark papers that have helped define and advance the field
  • About the reading out loud: this is because the brain processes visual information differently than auditory input. So your ears can often detect mistakes your eyes missed. I usually recommend reading out loud at least a day after writing (not same day)

    Read by colleagues I think self-explantory
  • QCed 9/2
  • QCed 9/2
  • Chinese captions:
    Decision: Editorial office decision: 最终审稿意见
    Reasons for rejection: 拒稿意见
    Reviewer comments included: 审稿人意见


    In the next paragraph the editor mentions that the reviewer’s comments are included at the end of the letter. In some rejection letters, you may not always be sent the Reviewer comments (Warrne mentioned this- is this for life sciences only? I have not come across it in physical sciences). However in this case, the reviewer comments have been sent to Dr. Long. And he has been informed that they are at the end of the letter.
  • Chinese captions:
    Decision: Editorial office decision: 最终审稿意见
    Reasons for rejection: 拒稿意见
    Reviewer comments included: 审稿人意见


    In the next paragraph the editor mentions that the reviewer’s comments are included at the end of the letter. In some rejection letters, you may not always be sent the Reviewer comments (Warrne mentioned this- is this for life sciences only? I have not come across it in physical sciences). However in this case, the reviewer comments have been sent to Dr. Long. And he has been informed that they are at the end of the letter.
  • Chinese captions:
    Decision: Editorial office decision: 最终审稿意见
    Reasons for rejection: 拒稿意见
    Reviewer comments included: 审稿人意见


    In the next paragraph the editor mentions that the reviewer’s comments are included at the end of the letter. In some rejection letters, you may not always be sent the Reviewer comments (Warrne mentioned this- is this for life sciences only? I have not come across it in physical sciences). However in this case, the reviewer comments have been sent to Dr. Long. And he has been informed that they are at the end of the letter.
  • He has been more successful this time and has received an email informing him that his MS might become suitable if revisions are undertaken. This letter is longer than the rejection letter because more information is included. After the decision, information about submitting a revised version is given.
  • And also the procedure for responding. In this example, they have requested that changes to the text should be highlight in bold or coloured text, or as track changes in word. They also request that responses to each comment must be given.


    In addition to just HOW to submit revisions, editors will also outline any specific requests they have regarding how to indicate the changes made. In this example, they have requested that any changes to the text be shown using highlight or coloured text, or as tracked changes. They have also requested that as much detail be provided as possible to explain the changes made in response to each comment.

    Finally, be sure to check for the due date for resubmission. Some journals have very short turnaround times for revisions, while others can be 1-2 months. If you are not able to meet this deadline, you may have to resubmit your manuscript as a new submission; therefore, It is very important that you notify the journal as soon as possible if you need an extension.
  • QCed 9/2
  • QCed 9/2
  • QCed 9/2
  • QCed 9/2
  • Many people are not aware of option 1. Not many authors do. Emphasize as this is a new submission, they need to write a new cover letter (NOT response letter). But PBP should be included at the end of the CL.


    If the answer is no. Then he should modify his manuscript as much as he can and submit to a different journal. Its important to incorporate reviewers commnets. Experts in the your field have taken the time to provide their opinion, so its important that you spend time to revise your manuscript and make the necessary changes to improve the science or language. A revised MS has higher chance of being accepted than a non revised MS. So getting back to Dr. Long, he has decided to submit his revised manuscript to a different journal- this time he has chosen Applied Nanoscience.
  • 20130927 Edanz Peer Review

    1. 1. Peer review
    2. 2. Coverage and Staffing Plan 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
    3. 3. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review Peer review models Blind Double-blind Open Transferable Reviewer is anonymous to the author Both reviewer and author are anonymous No one is anonymous Sharing of peer review comments between journals/publishers
    4. 4. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review What reviewers are evaluating The study 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
    5. 5. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review 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 What reviewers are evaluating The study
    6. 6. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review 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 What reviewers are evaluating The study
    7. 7. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review 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 What reviewers are evaluating The study
    8. 8. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review 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 What reviewers are evaluating
    9. 9. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review What reviewers are evaluating
    10. 10. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review 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 What reviewers are evaluating
    11. 11. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review 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 What reviewers are evaluating
    12. 12. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review The manuscript Readability • Correct spelling and grammar • Clearly communicate your ideas in English • Use short sentences, active voice, and sentence structure • Read your manuscript out loud, read by colleagues What reviewers are evaluating
    13. 13. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review Resubmission Should you resubmit to the same journal? Can I answer all the reviewer comments and fully revise my manuscript before the deadline? Yes Resubmit to the same journal • Fully revise manuscript • Point-by-point responses
    14. 14. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review Should you resubmit to the same journal? Can I answer all the reviewer comments and fully revise my manuscript before the deadline? No Submit to a different journal • Revise manuscript as much as possible • Reformat manuscript Resubmission
    15. 15. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review Unclear decision letter 30 August 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. Decision Reason Comments
    16. 16. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review  The Reviewer comments are not entirely negative.  It is not possible to consider your manuscript in its current form.  I hope the information provided by the reviewers will be helpful in the future.  I regret that the outcome has not been favorable at this time. Editor may be interested in your work
    17. 17. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review 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. Editor is not interested in your work
    18. 18. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review Why send an unclear decision letter? Publication time Long revisions = long publication times Editors hope you fully revise and then resubmit as a new submission
    19. 19. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review Clear decision letter 10 November 2015 Dear Dr. Robens, Manuscript ID 10.1007/s10850-556: “Prediction of nonlinear seismic responses of asymmetric structures under stress” Your manuscript has been reviewed, and we believe that after revision your manuscript may become suitable for publication in Journal of Seismology. The reviewer concerns are included at the bottom of this letter. You can submit a revised manuscript that takes into consideration these comments. You will also need to include a detailed commentary of the changes made. Please note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your resubmission may be subject to re-review by the reviewers before a decision is made. To revise your manuscript, log into https://www.editorialmanager.com/JSeis/ and enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision. … Manuscript ID number Decision How to re-submit
    20. 20. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review …You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using bold or colored text. Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Center. When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s). IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission. Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to BBE, your revised manuscript should be uploaded by 10 December. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission. Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Journal of Seismology and I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. How to respond Due date for resubmission Clear decision letter
    21. 21. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review Highlight the text 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 Read by the journal editor, not the reviewers Strikethrough font for deletions
    22. 22. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review Fernando L. Cônsoli Editor-in-Chief Neotropical Entomology 2 September 2013 Dear Dr Cônsoli, Re: Resubmission of manuscript reference No. WJS-07-5739 Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript originally entitled “Population dynamics of Drosophilids in response to humidity and temperature,” which we would like to resubmit for consideration for publication in Neotropical Entomology. 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 Neotropical Entomology. Address editor personally Manuscript ID number Thank reviewers Highlight major changes Writing response letters
    23. 23. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review 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). Agreement Revisions Location Why agree Agreeing with reviewers
    24. 24. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review 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: It is clear that this reviewer is not familiar with the current analytical methods in the field. I recommend that you identify a more suitable reviewer for my manuscript. Disagreeing with reviewers
    25. 25. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review 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). Disagreeing with reviewers Revisions Location Evidence
    26. 26. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review 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” “Unfair” reviewer comments
    27. 27. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review “Unfair” reviewer comments What you should do First, contact the journal editor if you feel reviewer is being unfair  Do the experiments, revise, and resubmit  Withdraw submission and resubmit current manuscript to a journal with a different scope or lower impact factor
    28. 28. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review Reviewer comment: The authors looked for polymorphisms in the promoter region of the gene; however, they didn't evaluate the untranslated regions. That is one of my concerns about this methodology. “Hidden” questions Is this a question? If you are unsure about a reviewer’s comment, ask a colleague
    29. 29. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review Reviewer comment: The authors looked for polymorphisms in the promoter region of the gene; however, they didn't evaluate the untranslated regions. That is one of my concerns about this methodology. “Hidden” questions Rephrased question: Why didn’t the authors evaluate polymorphisms in the untranslated regions of the gene?
    30. 30. Coverage and Staffing Plan Peer review 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

    ×