20140724 Edanz Kyushu Session 8
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
307
On Slideshare
295
From Embeds
12
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 12

http://www.edanzediting.co.jp 12

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Andrew Jackson, PhD Senior Editor Kyushu University Department of Agriculture Session 8 – Peer Review & Revisions Kyushu University 24 July 2014
  • 2. Seminar series June 5 Effective presentations June 12 Reviewing the literature June 19 Academic publishing June 26 Research and publication ethics July 3 Effective writing July 10 Manuscript structure July 17 Communicating with journals July 24 Peer review and revisions
  • 3. Today’s presentation June 5 Effective presentations June 12 Reviewing the literature June 19 Academic publishing June 26 Research and publication ethics July 3 Effective writing July 10 Manuscript structure July 17 Communicating with journals July 24 Peer review and revisions
  • 4. Recommending reviewers Section 1
  • 5. Customer ServiceRecommending reviewers Why recommend reviewers? Journal editors are busy!  Evaluating new submissions  Finding reviewers  Evaluating reviewer comments  Evaluating revised manuscripts  Commissioning review articles  Organizing special issues  Updating aims and scope  Increasing the profile/visibility of their journal  Ensuring consistency in their publication
  • 6. Customer ServiceRecommending reviewers Why recommend reviewers? What problems do journal editors face when finding reviewers?  If not in your field, they may not be familiar with whom may be best to evaluate your work  Resort to using online databases to find reviewers  Only ~1/3 of reviewers accept peer review invitations
  • 7. Customer ServiceRecommending reviewers Why recommend reviewers? Reviewers recommended by authors are usually more favorable 1. Scharschimidt et al. J Clin Invest. 1994; 93: 1877–1880. 2. Earnshaw & Farndon. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2000; 82: 133–135. 3. Grimm. Science 2005; 309: 1974. 4. Wager et al. BMC Med. 2006; 4: 13. 5. Schroter et al. JAMA 2006; 295: 314–317. 6. Rivara et al. J Pediatr. 2007; 151: 202–205. 7. Bornmann & Daniel. Res Eval. 2009; 18: 262–272. 8. Bornmann & Daniel. PLoS One 2010; 5: e13345.
  • 8. Customer ServiceRecommending reviewers Why recommend reviewers? Reviewers recommended by authors are usually more favorable Accept Reject Author Editor Author Editor JAMA (n=329) 56.9% 46.0% 12.9% 23.6% BMC Med (n=200) 47.0% 35.0% 10.0% 23.0% J Pediatr (n=280) 63.6% 42.9% 14.3% 25.0%
  • 9. Customer ServiceRecommending reviewers Do you have to recommend reviewers? Sometimes (depends on the journal) “When submitting your paper, you must provide the names, affiliations, and valid e-mail addresses of five (5) reviewers. If you do not do so, your paper will be returned, unreviewed.” “Authors are requested to provide the names and full addresses (including e-mail address) of up to four potential referees…”
  • 10. Customer ServiceRecommending reviewers Who should you choose? Where to find them? From your reading/references, networking at conferences • Chose reviewers who have expertise in one or more aspects of your study • Avoid direct competitors • Researchers you have discussed your work with at conferences may be more likely to accept an invitation
  • 11. Customer ServiceRecommending reviewers Who should you choose? How senior? Aim for mid-level researchers • Full professors, heads of departments, and deans are usually too busy • Associate professors have good experience and more time • Note: if you do recommend a senior researcher, they may recommend a junior researcher from their group
  • 12. Customer ServiceRecommending reviewers Who should you avoid? Collaborators (past 5 years) Researchers from same institution Researchers without publications Researchers without English websites
  • 13. Customer ServiceRecommending reviewers Choose internationally • 1 or 2 reviewers from Asia • 1 or 2 reviewers from Europe • 1 or 2 reviewers from North America Journal Editors want to see an international list for 2 reasons: 1. Shows that you are familiar with your field worldwide 2. Shows that your research is relevant worldwide • Increased readership → increased citations → increased impact factor
  • 14. Peer Review Section 2
  • 15. 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
  • 16. Peer review What reviewers are evaluating The science 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
  • 17. Peer review What reviewers are evaluating The science 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
  • 18. Peer review What reviewers are evaluating The science 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
  • 19. Peer review What reviewers are evaluating The science 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
  • 20. Peer review What reviewers are evaluating 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
  • 21. Peer review What reviewers are evaluating 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
  • 22. Peer review What reviewers are evaluating 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
  • 23. Peer review What reviewers are evaluating The manuscript Readability • Correct spelling and grammar • Clearly communicate your ideas in English Use short sentences, active voice, and topic/stress positions Read your manuscript out loud, read by colleagues
  • 24. Revisions Section 3
  • 25. Revisions Decision letter Decision Reason Comments 25 January 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.
  • 26. Revisions Editor is interested in your work  The Reviewer comments are not entirely negative.  It is not possible to consider your manuscript in its current form.  I hope the information provided will be helpful when you revise your manuscript.  I regret that the outcome has not been favorable at this time.
  • 27. Revisions Editor is not interested in your work 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.
  • 28. Revisions The submission process Accepted— publication! EditorAuthor Peer review Reject Results novel? Topic relevant? Revision New experiments Improve readability Add information
  • 29. Revisions 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 The response letter is only read by the journal editor
  • 30. Revisions Writing a response letter Marc Lippman, MD Editor-in-Chief Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3 September 2013 Dear Dr Lippman, Re: Resubmission of manuscript reference No. WJS-07-5739 Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript originally entitled “Evaluation of the Glasgow prognostic score in patients undergoing curative resection for breast cancer liver metastases,” which we would like to resubmit for consideration for publication in the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 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 the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. Address editor personally Manuscript ID number Thank reviewers Highlight major changes
  • 31. Revisions 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). Agreeing with reviewers Agreement Revisions Location
  • 32. Revisions Disagreeing with reviewers 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). Evidence Revisions Location
  • 33. Revisions “Unfair” reviewer comments 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”
  • 34. Revisions “Unfair” reviewer comments What you should do: Contact the journal editor and explain why you feel the reviewer is being unfair. 1. Do the experiments, revise, and resubmit to the same journal 2. Withdraw submission and resubmit current manuscript to a more appropriate journal
  • 35. 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
  • 36. If accepted, what’s next?  Promote your work on social networks • Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn  Respond to post-publication comments  Present your work at conferences • Allows you to discuss your work personally with your peers • Get feedback about your work and future directions • Networking and collaborations
  • 37. Thank you! Any questions? Follow us on Twitter @JournalAdvisor Like us on Facebook facebook.com/EdanzEditing Download and further reading edanzediting.co.jp/kyushu_140724 Jeffrey Robens: jrobens@edanzgroup.com Andrew Jackson: ajackson@edanzgroup.com