Presentation done by Andreas Zins, during IFITT Doctoral Summer School 2015, in Vienna, Austria.

1. 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 sure
it meets the necessary standards before it is
published or accepted
(Merriam-Webster)
2

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 review
process 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 stimulate
new ideas
•Builds association with prestigious journals
and editors
•Aware of new research before others are
•Career development
4

3. 22.07.2015
3
Why Peer review?
5
Reasons for Declining to Review
6

4. 22.07.2015
4
What do researchers want as authors
and as readers?
7
Certification Function
8

5. 22.07.2015
5
Purpose of Peer Review: Gaps
9
Types of Peer Review
10

6. 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 determines
what becomes the public record of science is based on
trust
 Trust between authors and editors
 Trust between editors and reviewers
12

7. 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 and
affiliation to the editor.
13
Take-home Messages
Find out the value of the manuscript!
14

8. 22.07.2015
8
The Peer Review Process - Overview
15
The Peer Review Process (I)
16
 Regular articles are initially reviewed by at least two
reviewers
 When invited, the reviewer receives the Abstract of the
manuscript
 The editor generally requests that the article be reviewed
within 2 – 4 weeks
 Articles are revised until the two reviewers agree on either
acceptance or rejection, or until the editor decides that the
reviewer comments have been addressed satisfactorily
 The reviewer reports help the Editors to reach a decision
on a submitted paper
 The reviewer is the one who recommends; the editor decides!

9. 22.07.2015
9
The Peer Review Process (II)
17
 If a report has not been received after 4 weeks, the
Editorial office contacts the reviewer
 If there is a notable disagreement between the reports of
the reviewers, a 3rd (or even 4th) reviewer may be
consulted
 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 be
treated 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 significant
effort on the part of the Editorial staff, Editor and Reviewers
 If reviewers treat authors as they themselves would like to
be treated as authors, then these objectives can be met.

10. 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

11. 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 abstract
too long?
21
Introduction
 Is it effective, clear, and well organized?
 Does it really introduce and put into perspective what
follows?
 Suggest changes in organization and point authors to
approprite citations if necessary
 Be as specific as possible when giving feedback
22

12. 22.07.2015
12
Assessing the methodology
 Can a colleague reproduce the results?
 Is the description of new methodology complete and
accurate?
 Did the authors include proper references to previsouly
published methodology?
 Is the sample size large enough and was it selected in an
appropriate way?
 Was the data collected in accordance with accepted
practice?
 Could or should the authors have inlcuded supplementary
material?
23
Results and discussion (I)
 Suggsst improvements in the way data is shown
 Comment on general logic and on justification of
interpretations and conclusions
 Comment on the number of figures, tabes, and schemes
 Write concisely and precisely which changes you
recommend
24

13. 22.07.2015
13
Results and discussion (II)
 List suggested style/grammar changes and other small
changes separately
 Suggest additional experiments or analyses
 Make clear the need for changes/updates
 Ask yourself whether the manuscript is worth being
published
25
Assessing the conclusions
 Comment on importance, validity, and generality of
conclusions
 Request toning down of unjustified claims and
generalizations
 Request removal of redundancies and summaries
 The Abstract, not the Conclusion, summarizes the study
26

14. 22.07.2015
14
References, tables, and figures
 Check accuracy, number, and appropriateness of citations
 Comment on tables and figures, and their quality and
readability
 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 by
Elsevier)
 Free access to Scopus (the world‘s largest abstract and
citation database
 Reference-linking in PDF of the manuscript
28

15. 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 of
the 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 suitable
for 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 for
publication 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

16. 22.07.2015
16
Reviewer checklist – For the editor
31
Outcomes
32

17. 22.07.2015
17
Editor’s view: What makes a good
reviewer?
 Provides an objective, thorough, and comprehensive
report
 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 the
quality and integrity of the reviewers
 Reviewers should write reports in a collegial and
constructive manner
 Reviewers should treat all manuscripts in the same
manner they would like their own manuscript to be treated
34