Daniel Feerst always aware of employee assistance program management and drug-free workplace consulting and substance abuse intervention consulting with workplaces and families, in his articles.

1. Content of peer reviews for editor
Daniel Feerst

2. Stages in the process
Choose journal
Format style
Submission
Editor assignment
Peer review
Decision
Revisions
Acceptance
Copy editing and proofs
Online publication
Inclusion in issue
2 months - 1 year ++

4. Choose journal
• General/subject-specific
• Type of paper (empirical/ theoretical)
• Quality of paper (impact factor of journal)
• Who do you want to read it, and what do they read?
• Peruse reference list of your manuscript
• Web of Science
– Journal Citation reports > View group of journals by
subject area

5. Format style
• Each journal has its own idiosyncratic style for
references, text, figures etc.
• Vital to follow these to the letter (avoid
appearance of sloppiness)

6. Submission
• Usually online
• Cover letter
– Boilerplate (title, authors, not under consideration
elsewhere)
– Significance
– Experimental design
– Major findings and conclusions
• Select reviewers/editor
• Figure formats

7. Editor assignment
• Editor in chief reads paper and sends to
handling editor (maybe)
– Not in your subject area, make appeal broad
• Handling editor
– Closer to your subject area
– Chooses whether to send for review
– Selects reviewers

9. Peer review
• Usually 2-3 experts in your field
• Blind/double blind
• Ideally can evaluate different aspects of your
paper
• In reality, maybe whoever says yes
• Here, your suggestions can help shape your
review process
• Beware non-preferred reviewers!
• Reviewer return comments in 2-3 weeks (maybe)

10. What are peer-reviewers looking for?
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/subjects.php?action=tag&id=63

11. Content of peer reviews - for authors
• Summary of major insights and significance
– Establish reviewer expertise, provide broader context
• Major comments
– Missing or unclear context or poor structure
– Methodological issues
– Conclusions not well-founded
• Minor comments
– Missing citations
– Spelling or grammar
– Incorrect/missing figure/table refs
– Minor clarifications of meaning
– Suggestions for shortening paper

12. Content of peer reviews – for editor
• Confidential statement of recommendation
and justification
• “Is this paper in the top 15% of papers in
Ecology”
• Can make editor’s job easy or difficult

13. Decision
• Handling editor (anonymously) makes
recommendation based on reviewer comments
• Editor in chief makes final decision based on
handling editor’s recommendation
– Accept as is (uncommon)
– Minor revisions
– Major revisions
– Reject
– Transfer to alternate journal

14. Revisions
• Address each comment
• Use tracked changes
• Compile comments in response document and
reply to each one (respectful tone important)
• Unless you strongly disagree, just do it!
• May require more experiments
• Resubmit with cover letter and response
document (no guarantees)
• Back to same/different reviewers (optional)

15. Final decision
• Handling editor and editor in chief make final
decision (accept or reject)
• Appeals process (don’t do unless you have a
very good reason)
• This version of the manuscript is the last one
that is still “yours”

16. Copy editing and proofs
• Editing grammer and style
• Preparing proofs
• Send proofs with queries to author for
approval (last change to catch mistakes)
• No substantive changes at this point

17. Online publication
• Available online within days of returning
proofs
• No page numbers or issue, cited as “in press”
• This version is subject to copyright laws –
journal specific

18. Inclusion in issue
• Put into journal, may be printed in hard copy
for library distribution
• Volume, issue and page numbers (full citation)

19. Congratulations!
A year or more later, you are the proud parent
of a scientific article
(Now, go do it again)