Presentació realitzada per Ana Marušić en el marc del Seminari sobre la revisió per experts (peer review) que va tenir lloc a la Facultat de Biblioteconomia i Documentació de la UB el 20 de juny de 2011, dins el marc del programa de doctorat “Informació i Documentació en la Societat del Coneixement”. Aquest seminari va ser organitzat conjuntament amb l'EASE (European Association of Science Editors).
Introduction to the peer review workshop for the PhD students of the Wageningen Graduate Schools. The goal is to explain peer review, entice PhD students to take part in the peer review process and give some tips on how to start with peer review.
This presentation help those student who wants to write and publish their research work in any research journal and it also help to student in selection of specific journal for their research paper.
Scientific writing is not just writing about science; it is the technical writing that scientists do to communicate their research to others. Scientific writing is predicated on the rigors of scientific inquiry, so it must reflect the same precision as that demanded in the research process.
Introduction to the peer review workshop for the PhD students of the Wageningen Graduate Schools. The goal is to explain peer review, entice PhD students to take part in the peer review process and give some tips on how to start with peer review.
This presentation help those student who wants to write and publish their research work in any research journal and it also help to student in selection of specific journal for their research paper.
Scientific writing is not just writing about science; it is the technical writing that scientists do to communicate their research to others. Scientific writing is predicated on the rigors of scientific inquiry, so it must reflect the same precision as that demanded in the research process.
As a researcher, you are expected to start publishing early in your career. But original research could take years to complete! This does not mean you that you cannot publish a paper until you complete your research. You can disseminate your research in many other ways. These slides will help you learn more about the different types of scholarly literature so that you are able to choose the most suitable format for publishing your study.
5 hours course taught by Nicolás Robinson-García and Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras in June 23-July 3, 2014 in the University of Granada within the exchange program with Al-Faraby Kazakh National University students 'Current problems of modern philology'.
This ppt will provide the support to finding the indexing of publication and also will help to manage your research profile among world research forums.
Peer Review is the Process used to judge the quality of articles submitted for publication in a scholarly journal. Peer Reviewed articles are considered the best source to use when writing a research paper.
Short PowerPoint presentation outlining important things to consider when deciding where to publish your research. This presentation also lists some of the tools that can be used to evaluate journal quality to assist in the publishing decision-making process.
There are some common criteria you should consider when choosing a journal to publish in. Once you have a publication strategy in place, choose journals that meet all of your criteria.
Lecture by Professor Simon Haslett at the University of Wales Student Research Conference, Cardiff, on Friday 13th May 2011. Simon Haslett is Professor of Physical Geography and Dean of the School of STEM at the University of Wales.
Digital strategies to find the right journal for publishing your researchSC CTSI at USC and CHLA
Date: Apr 3, 2019
Speaker: Duncan Nicholas, Former Development Editor at international academic publisher Taylor and Francis Group, and now Director of DN Journals research publishing consultancy, and Senior Consultant for Enago Academy.
Overview: This webinar will provide an overview of digital tools and initiatives that help researchers select the right journal for their manuscript to ensure the best chance of article acceptance.
This presentation is about shortlisting and choosing journals for publishing. It also discusses quality issues, including predatory and hijacked journals. Most appropriate for Social Science students.
Defining the h index and the calculation process. Also the main advantages and limitations besides how to increasing the h index.
Dr. Hassan Najman MUHAMED
hassan.muhamed@uod.ac
The University of Duhok - Kurdistan region of Iraq
Main focus is on Peer Review of academic manuscript before getting published and its types and ethics to be followed by peer review with advantage and disadvantage of peer review.
As a researcher, you are expected to start publishing early in your career. But original research could take years to complete! This does not mean you that you cannot publish a paper until you complete your research. You can disseminate your research in many other ways. These slides will help you learn more about the different types of scholarly literature so that you are able to choose the most suitable format for publishing your study.
5 hours course taught by Nicolás Robinson-García and Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras in June 23-July 3, 2014 in the University of Granada within the exchange program with Al-Faraby Kazakh National University students 'Current problems of modern philology'.
This ppt will provide the support to finding the indexing of publication and also will help to manage your research profile among world research forums.
Peer Review is the Process used to judge the quality of articles submitted for publication in a scholarly journal. Peer Reviewed articles are considered the best source to use when writing a research paper.
Short PowerPoint presentation outlining important things to consider when deciding where to publish your research. This presentation also lists some of the tools that can be used to evaluate journal quality to assist in the publishing decision-making process.
There are some common criteria you should consider when choosing a journal to publish in. Once you have a publication strategy in place, choose journals that meet all of your criteria.
Lecture by Professor Simon Haslett at the University of Wales Student Research Conference, Cardiff, on Friday 13th May 2011. Simon Haslett is Professor of Physical Geography and Dean of the School of STEM at the University of Wales.
Digital strategies to find the right journal for publishing your researchSC CTSI at USC and CHLA
Date: Apr 3, 2019
Speaker: Duncan Nicholas, Former Development Editor at international academic publisher Taylor and Francis Group, and now Director of DN Journals research publishing consultancy, and Senior Consultant for Enago Academy.
Overview: This webinar will provide an overview of digital tools and initiatives that help researchers select the right journal for their manuscript to ensure the best chance of article acceptance.
This presentation is about shortlisting and choosing journals for publishing. It also discusses quality issues, including predatory and hijacked journals. Most appropriate for Social Science students.
Defining the h index and the calculation process. Also the main advantages and limitations besides how to increasing the h index.
Dr. Hassan Najman MUHAMED
hassan.muhamed@uod.ac
The University of Duhok - Kurdistan region of Iraq
Main focus is on Peer Review of academic manuscript before getting published and its types and ethics to be followed by peer review with advantage and disadvantage of peer review.
This session offers insights into the reviewing process associated with academic journals, which will help you in the roles of both reviewer and author. It will offer advice and reflection on when to accept an invitation to review, and on the benefits and practicalities of the process.
What are the suggestions given by peer reviewers in the introduction section ...Pubrica
The peer reviewer may suggest adding more context to the introduction to help readers understand the research question and its importance. For example, the reviewer may suggest providing a more detailed description of the problem the research aims to address.
Visit us @ https://pubrica.com/academy/original-research-article/suggestions-given-by-peer-reviewers-in-the-introduction-section-of-the-original-research-article/
Tutorial per aprendre a documentar-se a l'hora de fer el treball de recerca de batxillerat.
-Les parts del treball de recerca
-On trobar documents de qualitat
-Com preparar la bibliografia
Anglada, Lluís (2019). "Cloenda de la sessió". Jornada Intensiu Digital: intercanvi d'experiències en col·leccions digitals 2019. Universitat de Barcelona, Facultat de Biblioteconomia i Documentació, 13 de juny de 2019.
Rodríguez, Sergio (2019). "Recuperamos, conservamos y promocionamos el patrimonio publicitario". Jornada Intensiu Digital: intercanvi d'experiències en col·leccions digitals 2019. Universitat de Barcelona, Facultat de Biblioteconomia i Documentació, 13 de juny de 2019.
Vicente, Oriol (2019). "Transferència i Innovació del Patrimoni Digital: de la universitat a la comunitat". Jornada Intensiu Digital: intercanvi d'experiències en col·leccions digitals 2019. Universitat de Barcelona, Facultat de Biblioteconomia i Documentació, 13 de juny de 2019.
Gumà, Montserrat (2019). "GoogleArt Project: set anys després, ha valgut la pena ser-hi?". Jornada Intensiu Digital: intercanvi d'experiències en col·leccions digitals 2019. Universitat de Barcelona, Facultat de Biblioteconomia i Documentació, 13 de juny de 2019.
Hernández Güell, Marc (2019). "La Tempesta. Hibridem formats! Avancem en paradigmes". Jornada Intensiu Digital: intercanvi d'experiències en col·leccions digitals 2019. Universitat de Barcelona, Facultat de Biblioteconomia i Documentació, 13 de juny de 2019.
Serra, Eugènia (2019). "Google llibres 12 anys després". Jornada Intensiu Digital: intercanvi d'experiències en col·leccions digitals 2019. Universitat de Barcelona, Facultat de Biblioteconomia i Documentació, 13 de juny de 2019.
Sierra, Albert (2019). "L'ecosistema del 3D al Patrimoni Cultural". Jornada Intensiu Digital: intercanvi d'experiències en col·leccions digitals 2019. Universitat de Barcelona, Facultat de Biblioteconomia i Documentació, 13 de juny de 2019.
Seminari «Perspectives de la recerca en comunicació».
Universitat de Barcelona, 22 setembre 2016.
Metodologías de investigación en Comunicación / José Luis Piñuel (UCM).
Seminari «Perspectives de la recerca en comunicació».
Universitat de Barcelona, 22 setembre 2016.
Revistas científicas españolas en Comunicación / Javier Guallar (UB).
Material sobre Web semàntic de Eva Ma. Méndez Rodríguez / Seminari de l'Aula Jordi Rubió i Balaguer (Facultat de Biblioteconomia i Documentació - UB) Barcelona, 09 d'abril de 2014
Material sobre Web semàntic i Linked Open Data de Ramon Ros (CSUC) / Seminari de l'Aula Jordi Rubió i Balaguer (Facultat de Biblioteconomia i Documentació - UB) Barcelona, 09 d'abril de 2014
Catàleg de l'exposició «Tal com érem», preparada pels estudiants de l'assignatura Documents personals: organització, conservació i ús, impartida per la professora Maria Elvira en el curs de la Universitat de l'Experiència Biblioteques i Arxius en l’Era Digital de la nostra Facultat.
L'exposició va tenir lloc el gener i febrer de 2013 al vestíbul de la planta 1 de la Facultat de Biblioteconomia i Documentació i reunia fotografies i objectes dels alumnes de la classe, com a complement d'una activitat individual que consistia en la redacció d’una autobiografia documentada.
L'objectiu de l'exposició era oferir una petita mostra de les imatges que documenten les autobiografies, i treballar des de la pràctica un altre contingut important de l'assignatura: l'ús i la difusió dels documents d'arxiu.
«La Búsqueda», presentació de Lluís Codina, Doctor en Ciències de la Informació i professor de la Universitat Pompeu Fabra (www.lluiscodina.com). Tercer seminari de l'Aula Jordi Rubió i Balaguer, curs 2012-2013 (15/05/2013)
More from Universitat de Barcelona - Facultat d’Informació i Mitjans Audiovisuals (20)
DevOps and Testing slides at DASA ConnectKari Kakkonen
My and Rik Marselis slides at 30.5.2024 DASA Connect conference. We discuss about what is testing, then what is agile testing and finally what is Testing in DevOps. Finally we had lovely workshop with the participants trying to find out different ways to think about quality and testing in different parts of the DevOps infinity loop.
Epistemic Interaction - tuning interfaces to provide information for AI supportAlan Dix
Paper presented at SYNERGY workshop at AVI 2024, Genoa, Italy. 3rd June 2024
https://alandix.com/academic/papers/synergy2024-epistemic/
As machine learning integrates deeper into human-computer interactions, the concept of epistemic interaction emerges, aiming to refine these interactions to enhance system adaptability. This approach encourages minor, intentional adjustments in user behaviour to enrich the data available for system learning. This paper introduces epistemic interaction within the context of human-system communication, illustrating how deliberate interaction design can improve system understanding and adaptation. Through concrete examples, we demonstrate the potential of epistemic interaction to significantly advance human-computer interaction by leveraging intuitive human communication strategies to inform system design and functionality, offering a novel pathway for enriching user-system engagements.
Slack (or Teams) Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Soluti...Jeffrey Haguewood
Sidekick Solutions uses Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apricot) and automation solutions to integrate data for business workflows.
We believe integration and automation are essential to user experience and the promise of efficient work through technology. Automation is the critical ingredient to realizing that full vision. We develop integration products and services for Bonterra Case Management software to support the deployment of automations for a variety of use cases.
This video focuses on the notifications, alerts, and approval requests using Slack for Bonterra Impact Management. The solutions covered in this webinar can also be deployed for Microsoft Teams.
Interested in deploying notification automations for Bonterra Impact Management? Contact us at sales@sidekicksolutionsllc.com to discuss next steps.
Search and Society: Reimagining Information Access for Radical FuturesBhaskar Mitra
The field of Information retrieval (IR) is currently undergoing a transformative shift, at least partly due to the emerging applications of generative AI to information access. In this talk, we will deliberate on the sociotechnical implications of generative AI for information access. We will argue that there is both a critical necessity and an exciting opportunity for the IR community to re-center our research agendas on societal needs while dismantling the artificial separation between the work on fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics in IR and the rest of IR research. Instead of adopting a reactionary strategy of trying to mitigate potential social harms from emerging technologies, the community should aim to proactively set the research agenda for the kinds of systems we should build inspired by diverse explicitly stated sociotechnical imaginaries. The sociotechnical imaginaries that underpin the design and development of information access technologies needs to be explicitly articulated, and we need to develop theories of change in context of these diverse perspectives. Our guiding future imaginaries must be informed by other academic fields, such as democratic theory and critical theory, and should be co-developed with social science scholars, legal scholars, civil rights and social justice activists, and artists, among others.
"Impact of front-end architecture on development cost", Viktor TurskyiFwdays
I have heard many times that architecture is not important for the front-end. Also, many times I have seen how developers implement features on the front-end just following the standard rules for a framework and think that this is enough to successfully launch the project, and then the project fails. How to prevent this and what approach to choose? I have launched dozens of complex projects and during the talk we will analyze which approaches have worked for me and which have not.
PHP Frameworks: I want to break free (IPC Berlin 2024)Ralf Eggert
In this presentation, we examine the challenges and limitations of relying too heavily on PHP frameworks in web development. We discuss the history of PHP and its frameworks to understand how this dependence has evolved. The focus will be on providing concrete tips and strategies to reduce reliance on these frameworks, based on real-world examples and practical considerations. The goal is to equip developers with the skills and knowledge to create more flexible and future-proof web applications. We'll explore the importance of maintaining autonomy in a rapidly changing tech landscape and how to make informed decisions in PHP development.
This talk is aimed at encouraging a more independent approach to using PHP frameworks, moving towards a more flexible and future-proof approach to PHP development.
GDG Cloud Southlake #33: Boule & Rebala: Effective AppSec in SDLC using Deplo...James Anderson
Effective Application Security in Software Delivery lifecycle using Deployment Firewall and DBOM
The modern software delivery process (or the CI/CD process) includes many tools, distributed teams, open-source code, and cloud platforms. Constant focus on speed to release software to market, along with the traditional slow and manual security checks has caused gaps in continuous security as an important piece in the software supply chain. Today organizations feel more susceptible to external and internal cyber threats due to the vast attack surface in their applications supply chain and the lack of end-to-end governance and risk management.
The software team must secure its software delivery process to avoid vulnerability and security breaches. This needs to be achieved with existing tool chains and without extensive rework of the delivery processes. This talk will present strategies and techniques for providing visibility into the true risk of the existing vulnerabilities, preventing the introduction of security issues in the software, resolving vulnerabilities in production environments quickly, and capturing the deployment bill of materials (DBOM).
Speakers:
Bob Boule
Robert Boule is a technology enthusiast with PASSION for technology and making things work along with a knack for helping others understand how things work. He comes with around 20 years of solution engineering experience in application security, software continuous delivery, and SaaS platforms. He is known for his dynamic presentations in CI/CD and application security integrated in software delivery lifecycle.
Gopinath Rebala
Gopinath Rebala is the CTO of OpsMx, where he has overall responsibility for the machine learning and data processing architectures for Secure Software Delivery. Gopi also has a strong connection with our customers, leading design and architecture for strategic implementations. Gopi is a frequent speaker and well-known leader in continuous delivery and integrating security into software delivery.
Software Delivery At the Speed of AI: Inflectra Invests In AI-Powered QualityInflectra
In this insightful webinar, Inflectra explores how artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming software development and testing. Discover how AI-powered tools are revolutionizing every stage of the software development lifecycle (SDLC), from design and prototyping to testing, deployment, and monitoring.
Learn about:
• The Future of Testing: How AI is shifting testing towards verification, analysis, and higher-level skills, while reducing repetitive tasks.
• Test Automation: How AI-powered test case generation, optimization, and self-healing tests are making testing more efficient and effective.
• Visual Testing: Explore the emerging capabilities of AI in visual testing and how it's set to revolutionize UI verification.
• Inflectra's AI Solutions: See demonstrations of Inflectra's cutting-edge AI tools like the ChatGPT plugin and Azure Open AI platform, designed to streamline your testing process.
Whether you're a developer, tester, or QA professional, this webinar will give you valuable insights into how AI is shaping the future of software delivery.
Smart TV Buyer Insights Survey 2024 by 91mobiles.pdf91mobiles
91mobiles recently conducted a Smart TV Buyer Insights Survey in which we asked over 3,000 respondents about the TV they own, aspects they look at on a new TV, and their TV buying preferences.
Kubernetes & AI - Beauty and the Beast !?! @KCD Istanbul 2024Tobias Schneck
As AI technology is pushing into IT I was wondering myself, as an “infrastructure container kubernetes guy”, how get this fancy AI technology get managed from an infrastructure operational view? Is it possible to apply our lovely cloud native principals as well? What benefit’s both technologies could bring to each other?
Let me take this questions and provide you a short journey through existing deployment models and use cases for AI software. On practical examples, we discuss what cloud/on-premise strategy we may need for applying it to our own infrastructure to get it to work from an enterprise perspective. I want to give an overview about infrastructure requirements and technologies, what could be beneficial or limiting your AI use cases in an enterprise environment. An interactive Demo will give you some insides, what approaches I got already working for real.
4. Reviewer comments
• Comments to editor
• Comments to author
• Reviewer recommendations and comments may
not agree, may even be contradictory
• Reviewers are consultants, not decision makers
• Editors are decision makers, ask them if you
have questions about reviewer comments,
editorial decision, or the process
5. Ethical responsibilites of reviewers
• Declare competing interests
• Ensure that reviewer is qualified
(= a peer)
• Inform the editor who actually did the
review (e.g. if passed onto a colleague)
• Treat material in confidence
• Take steps to avoid biased review
• Deliver courteous and timely reviews
6. Reviewer misconduct
• Cistron submitted DNA sequence for
interleukin-1 (IL-1) to Nature
• Paper reviewed by Gillis (Immunex): reject
• Sequence published in PNAS (corrected)
• Cistron and Immunex file patents for IL-1
• Immunex patent contains 7 errors from
original (rejected) Nature paper
• Cistron sues Immunex ($21mn settlement)
Rennie 1999
7. Advice to novice reviewers
http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/niu_peerr
eview/mistakes/index.htm#
8. Advice to novice reviewers:
Confidentiality
• Researchers who agree to participate as
reviewers take on the responsibility to
provide authors and/or applicants with the
best reviews possible. There is a trust
recognized between the reviewer and
author(s) of any work reviewed.
9. Advice to novice reviewers:
Confidentiality
• The reviewer has completed a review within the
prescribed time frame and sent the review response form
back to the editor. It contained comments intended for the
editor, including a recommendation to accept with minor
revisions, and helpful suggestions that the authors of the
manuscript might incorporate to improve the paper. This
reviewer, who shares an office with another researcher,
has left the manuscript with the accompanying comments,
in a common area that is used by both researchers. The
document remains in the area for a two week period
during which time his officemate happens to peruse the
manuscript.
10. Advice to novice reviewers:
Confidentiality
Has the reviewer acted responsibly?
No, this represents a violation of confidentiality.
Yes, since the reviewer has already submitted the review
form with comments.
11. Advice to novice reviewers:
Impartiality
• The selection criteria for peer reviewers
include relevant research expertise, sound
judgment, good communication skills, and
objectivity. Funding agencies and journal
editors rely on peer reviewers to make
recommendations to accept, reject, or
revise proposals/manuscripts based
primarily on their scientific merit.
12. Advice to novice reviewers:
Impartiality
• A chemistry professor specializing in efforts to develop a
safe and efficient chemical warfare agent decontamination
system is solicited by a journal editor to review a manuscript
that is very close to work she is currently engaged in.
• The abstract describes experiments that are quite similar to
the experiments being conducted by the chemistry
professor's collaborators. The potential reviewer realizes
that there are only a handful of researchers specializing in
this area who could competently provide an assessment of
the manuscript, and feels that accepting the request to
review would be the responsible thing to do.
13. Advice to novice reviewers:
Impartiality
• At this point, the chemistry professor has just seen the
title and abstract. However, the chemistry professor also
realizes that by reviewing the complete paper, she will
be privy to protocols that could aid in completing her own
work.
How should the chemistry professor proceed?
• Agree to review the manuscript, then decide whether she
can remain impartial after reading the complete
document.
• Notify the editor about her concerns about impartiality
before reading the complete document.
14. Advice to novice reviewers:
Responsiveness
• Participation in peer review is considered a
valuable service to science in general and to
one's field of study in particular. The main
mission of peer review is to assess the quality of
research to be conducted, in the form of
proposal submissions, or research completed in
the form of manuscript submissions. Reviewers
base their recommendations to funding agencies
or journal editors on their research expertise and
experience.
15. Advice to novice reviewers:
Responsiveness
• An editor for a high profile cellular biology journal contacts a
biologist with an expertise in cellular regeneration, and
request that he review a manuscript on this topic. The
biologist is very intrigued, because the authors of the paper
describe an innovative approach in the abstract.
• The editor asked that the review be completed and
submitted within two weeks. Although the time frame would
be reasonable during a different time of the year, the
biologist has several research investigations currently
demanding his attention as well as a presentation at an
international conference to complete. Although the biologist
estimates he will be unable to review the manuscript for at
least three to four weeks, he accepts the editor's request.
16. Advice to novice reviewers:
Responsiveness
Has the reviewer responded in a responsible manner?
• Yes, since he has every intention of providing a
comprehensive review.
• No, despite his intention to provide a comprehensive
review, he knows he will not do it within the agreed time
frame.
17. Advice to novice reviewers:
Disclosure of competing interests
• While conflict is a common human
experience, it can become an issue in
research integrity when the conflicts
(financial, personal, political), are between
interest and duties. According to Shamoo
(1992, 1993) and Resnik (2001), most of
the concerns with COIs arise because
personal interest can undermine duties
relating to scientific objectivity.
18. Advice to novice reviewers:
Disclosure of competing interests
• A researcher from an academic institution receives a request by
a program officer to participate in a round of reviews for
proposals in an area in which she has considerable
background. The review process is a single blind review where
she will know the name of the authors of the proposals, but the
reviewers will remain anonymous to the authors.
• The researcher agrees to participate because she feels the
opportunity to review proposals will enhance her professional
service record. She is given a number of proposals to read, but
is assigned to take the lead on reviewing one proposal in
particular. As the researcher proceeds with reviewing this
assigned proposal, she realizes that she may have a conflict of
interests with one of the authors.
19. Advice to novice reviewers:
Disclosure of competing interests
• Earlier in her career, she and the author in question had a
mutual affiliation with a research endeavor at a private
research lab. There collaborative efforts resulted in several
unpublished reports. Since the affiliation was more than five
years ago, and the duration of the affiliation was less than
nine months, the researcher is uncertain whether she should
identify and certify this on the pre-meeting and post-meeting
Conflict of Interest Certification forms (COI_Information.pdf,
2005).
20. Advice to novice reviewers:
Disclosure of competing interests
How should the reviewer proceed with this proposal?
• Say nothing to the program officer and submit the
review without any mention of a possible COI.
• Say nothing to the program officer until submitting the
review that includes a disclosure of possible COI.
• Decides to say nothing unless it is brought up by the
program officer.
• Reveal this conflict of interest immediately and let the
program officer determine how to proceed.
21. Advice to novice reviewers:
Review quality
• Proposal applicants and authors rely on peer
reviewers providing objective, comprehensive
and fair assessments of their proposals and
submitted manuscripts. Reviewer comments and
recommendations can significantly enhance the
quality of research to be conducted, or make
necessary modifications of conclusion drawn.
The quality of the review depends on the
required level of demonstrated expertise,
research objectivity, and sufficient time spent in
the activity.
22. Advice to novice reviewers:
Review quality
• A researcher at a private research institute maintains a
busy schedule with responsibilities conducting and
coordinating multiple research projects. She receives a
request to participate in a round of proposal reviews for a
national research funding agency. Because she has
previously received funding from this agency, she feels
obliged to participate, even though there is a strong
likelihood she will not be able to provide a
comprehensive review of the assigned proposals.
Despite her reservations, the researcher's strong sense
of obligation may lead her to accept the request against
her better judgment.
23. Advice to novice reviewers:
Review quality
How should the researcher proceed?
• Decide to review proposals despite her reservations.
• Immediately decline to review proposals, but provide an
explanation to the program officer.
• Wait several weeks before deciding not to review
proposals, providing an explanation to the review
committee for her inability to participate and the delayed
response.
• Wait several weeks before deciding not to review the
proposals, and provides no explanation to the review
committee for either herunavailability to participate or her
delayed response.
24. Advice to novice reviewers:
Constructive criticism
• Journal editors attempt to select peer
reviewers based on their competencies in
areas relevant to the submitted
manuscript. Useful and practical
comments can be incorporated in later
revisions, enhance the quality of the
research, and hopefully, improve the
chances for acceptance of a submitted
paper.
25. Advice to novice reviewers:
Constructive criticism
• A peer reviewer is perusing a submission that details a
study with the objective of examining the superiority of
the newly developed instrument to measure a general
mental health of a person. The author, a graduate
student submitting her first manuscript, designed the
study with 20 healthy volunteers, 1) each one used the
standard Medical Outcome Study (MOS) mental health
scale soon after they entered the study and 2) after 3
months they used the newly developed instrument to
measure the response.
26. Advice to novice reviewers:
Constructive criticism
• The data consisted of pre (MOS scale) and post (new
instrument) study results on 20 subjects. The author
decided to test whether the mean post-study result is better
than the mean pre-study result using a standard 'pooled' t-
test.
• The peer reviewer, who has a substantial background in
statistics, disagrees with the selection of the standard
'pooled' t-test. The reviewer comments that “had the author
invested in a basic statistic text and bothered to read it, he
would have selected this test instead of wasting the
reviewer's time”.
27. Advice to novice reviewers:
Constructive criticism
Has the reviewer provided useful information to the
author?
• Yes, the reviewer's comment provide useful information on
how to address the problem.
• No, the reviewer's comment did not provide useful
information on how to address the problem.
28. Advice to novice reviewers:
Objectivity
• According to Rockwell (2006), researchers
serving as reviewers are obliged to judge
in a fair manner and objectively the quality
and significance of the work under review.
"He/she is obligated to support and
encourage publication of work of high
quality while appropriately challenging
flawed work."
29. Advice to novice reviewers:
Objectivity
• A senior researcher with an established reputation in a
specialized field is routinely sought after by funding
agencies and editorial boards to review proposals and
submitted articles. Her current level of demand contrasts
sharply with her early professional experience following
completion of her doctorate, when the researcher's quest
for a research position took almost 1 ½ years. She holds
a personal bias against several institutions that chose
not to hire her following completion of her doctorate. The
researcher has agreed to review a number of proposals
for a research funding agency.
30. Advice to novice reviewers:
Objectivity
• As she begins reviewing her first proposal, she
recognizes that the principal investigator is affiliated with
one of the institutions she holds a personal bias against.
There is a question as to whether her bias against the
institution may also extend to researchers affiliated with
this institution.
31. Advice to novice reviewers:
Objectivity
How should the researcher proceed?
• Engage in a self-reflection regarding her ability to
impartially review this proposal.
• Decide to review the proposal without any self-reflection.
• Decide to recuse herself from reviewing this proposal
without any self-reflection.
• After engaging in self-reflection, decide that her bias
impacts objectivity and ask to recuse herself from
reviewing the proposal.
33. BMJ Question 1. is the paper important?
• Has the research addressed a question that
had to be answered, or is it just “another
brick in the wall”?
• The question matters more than the answer.
If the question was important and the
answer is valid, then it doesn’t matter if the
answer is negative or boring.
• Is this something that clinicians or scientists,
policy makers, or the public need to know,
remembering that there’s more for them to
know than they can possibly know?
34. BMJ Question 2. Is the paper original?
• Ideally, you know the literature in the field covered in
the paper you have been asked to review; wise to
conduct a literature search before you write your
review
• Almost all of a series of RCTs described as “the
first” in major journals were not the first.
• Has this never been done before?
• If the question has been addressed before does this
add importantly (for example, a much bigger or
better designed study; first time in this population)?
35. BMJ Question 2. Is the paper original?
(continued)
• Remember that some things that are
“well known” are not based on any
evidence.
• If you think the research unoriginal
please give us references to previous
work. Don’t just say “it’s unoriginal.”
• If there are other important studies that
the authors don’t reference, please
provide references
36. BMJ Questions 3 and 4. Is the
Introduction section appropriate?
• Good explanation of study
context/background?
• Is there a brief, relevant literature review?
• Are the aims of the study, and study
hypothesis/question stated clearly?
37. BMJ Question 5: Are the research
methods valid?
• Identify the strengths as well as the
weaknesses of the study methods
• Is the design right for answering the
research question?
• Were the data collected adequately? Was
the sampling right?
• Are the methods described adequately
and completely?
• Are the analyses right? Should they be
redone?
38. BMJ Question 5: are the research
methods valid? (continued)
• If you are not strong in statistics, just
say so and focus on you’re the areas
you know best
• At a minimum, check the data in the
abstract, text, and tables for
consistency; add up some of the data in
the tables and point out obvious errors
39. BMJ Question 5: Are the methods valid
– do the paper and the information
reported follow ethical requirements?
• For research involving human participants
– Was the study reviewed and approved by an
ethics review committee?
– Was informed consent appropriately obtained?
• For research involving animals
– Were guidelines for the protection of animals in
experiments followed
• For case reports
– Are patients privacy protected? If patients are
identifiable, was appropriate permission obtained
40. BMJ Question 6. Are the results
presented adequately?
• Outcomes or observations in logical
order?
• For quantitative research - are data
presented numerically, with measures of
statistical significance and variability?
• For qualitative research – are observations
reported in categories or themes?
41. BMJ Question 7. Is the Discussion
section appropriate?
• Does it provide an answer to the research
question?
• Are the findings discussed in light of other
relevant literature?
• Are the study limitations clearly and
completely described?
42. BMJ Question 8: are the conclusions
reasonable?
• Are the conclusions supported by the data
or evidence in the paper?
• Do the conclusions go beyond the merits
of the paper
43. BMJ Question 9 – are the tables and
figures appropriate?
• Are they cited in the text?
• Are they overly simple or too complicated?
• Are the data in the tables or figures
redundant with each other or the text?
• Are the data clearly presented?
• Check data for consistency
• Are there too many or too few tables and
figures?
44. BMJ Question 10: are the references
appropriate?
• Are the references up to date?
• Are they relevant?
• Are they any important, relevant
reference that are missing?
45. BMJ Question 11: is the paper
appropriate for the journal’s readers?
• Know the journal and the journal’s
readership
• If uncertain, look for the journal’s mission
statement or description (often available
online); may also be in the journal’s
instructions for authors
• If you’re still uncertain, don’t comment on
this point
46. BMJ Question 12. Are the title and
abstract adequate?
• Assess title and abstract after you have
reviewed the manuscript, tables, and
figures
• Does the title give a clear message about
the study? Is it too long? Too short? Is a
subtitle needed?
• Is the abstract structured? Consistent with
the text, tables, and figures? Complete?
47. BMJ Question 13: is the writing clear?
• Do not point out every typo, spelling error,
and grammatical mistake
• Provide general comment on the clarity of
the paper
• Is the manuscript too long or too short?
• Remember to be constructive
48. Manuscript and cover letter
• Manuscript presents facts and
figures.
• Cover letter is your advertisment.
49. Cover letter
1. Manuscript title and authors’ names
2. Statement that the manuscript has not
been published or is under consideration
for publishing elsewhere (abstract up to
400-500 words is not considered previous
publication)
3. Reasons why you think the journal should
publish you article
4. (description of individual author’s
contributions)
51. How to Reply to Request for Revision
• Address editor’s concerns
• Address reviewers’ concerns
• Itemize replies to editor’s and and reviewer’s
comments
• If you disagree with a comment, explain
• Do not ignore comments
• Ask for deadline or timing of when revision
should be submitted
• Request for revision is not a guarantee of
acceptance
52. Sample author response letter – JAMA
March 6, 2010
Dear Dr. Editor,
We are pleased to submit our revised manuscript “Smoking Status is a
Clinical Indicator for Alcohol Misuse in Adults” (JAMA06-4240) for
your consideration for publication in JAMA.
We thank you and the reviewers for the careful consideration that was
given to the original version of the manuscript. We have addressed the
issues raised by each reviewer in the revision and describe how we have
addressed each issue below.
Each of the co-authors has reviewed and approved of the revision. Please
let us know if you have any additional questions. My contact information
is listed below. Thank you for the opportunity to revise this manuscript.
Sincerely,
Dr Author
53. Comments of Reviewer A
1. Introduction: This is much too long. It appears to have been lifted straight
out of your grant proposal.
The introduction has been shortened to 400 words.
2. Methods, page 9: Please explain why you included these control variables.
In light of this comment, the analyses are no longer adjusted for these control
variables. As suggested, we conducted additional analysis to examine whether
the original associations, and we found that our adjusted and unadjusted
outcomes were not substantially different. See manuscript page 8 for this
additional information.
3. Results, page 10: How did you calculate the response rate?
The response rate was derived by multiplying the household response rate
(89%) by the person response rate (93%) and the sample frame response rate
(99%). This method consistent with the JAMA recommended source document
for calculating response rates for multistage sample designs. See manuscript
page 9 for this explanation.
4. Confidence intervals for all measures of effect would improve the
presentation of the results.
We have provided either standard errors or confidence intervals for all
reported effects in the text and the tables.
54. Conclusions: What you should expect
from the editorial process
• Prompt acknowledgment and timely
assessment
• If reviewed, a rigorous review
• Confidentiality
• Fairness
• Clear, straightforward, and timely
communication