Rebecca E. Cooney MedicReS World Congress 2015
•Download as PPT, PDF•
2 likes•7,732 views
The document discusses the new roles and responsibilities of medical editors in the age of Big Data. It outlines the traditional roles of editors in overseeing peer review and setting editorial standards. It also describes how editors now evaluate different types of large dataset submissions, such as those involving genomics, transcriptomics, and epidemiology. The document suggests that future roles of editors may involve greater transparency through enforcing data sharing plans and pre-publishing results summaries.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Rebecca E. Cooney MedicReS World Congress 2015
Similar to Rebecca E. Cooney MedicReS World Congress 2015 (20)
More from MedicReS
More from MedicReS (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Rebecca E. Cooney MedicReS World Congress 2015
- 1. The new roles and responsibilities of medical editors in the age of Big Data Rebecca E. Cooney, PhD North American Editor The Lancet @BekRx #LancetUSA October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
- 2. The Lancet • Established in 1823 • Editorial offices in London, New York, and Beijing • Weekly publication • Impact factor = 45.217 • 9 “daughter journals” + EBioMedicine Diabetes & Endocrinology Global Health Infectious Diseases Neurology Oncology Respiratory Medicine HIV Haematology Psychiatry October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
- 3. 2016
- 4. The Lancet on the Web • www.thelancet.com • www.thelancetstudent.com • usa.thelancet.com October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
- 5. October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
- 6. Overview • What are the roles and responsibilities of a medical editor in general? • The lifecycle of a publication • Evaluating a manuscript • Evaluating findings • Focus on clinical trials, protocols, reporting • Transparency • What might the future look like – IOM report, PCORI October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
- 7. What do editors do? October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
- 8. What do editors do? October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org The Midwife
- 9. The role of professional editors •To oversee the peer review process, facilitate effective dialogue between authors and reviewers, and ensure process is efficient and productive. •To set editorial policy and standards for the journal. •To keep abreast of advances in the field. •Editorial writing, commissioning reviews or series, attending conferences, meeting with KOLs, interacting with the media
- 10. 10 Manuscript Submission Manuscript Submission Peer ReviewPeer Review ProductionProduction Publish and Disseminate Publish and Disseminate Edit and Prepare Edit and Prepare Archive and promote use Archive and promote use The Journal Publishing Cycle
- 11. 11
- 12. When a manuscript is submitted • The paper is read by the editor. The editor will review the published literature to assess whether the present work represents a significant conceptual advance. • This editor will handle the paper throughout the review process. Papers are also discussed with the team of editors at editorial meetings.
- 13. What kind of manuscript submissions are we seeing? October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
- 14. The Omics • Genomics – Nucleotide genome sequences, metagenomic sequences – Gene finding, functional annotation, sequence alignment, homology determination, comparative analysis, phylogenetic inferencing, association analysis, mutation functional prediction, species distribution analysis • Transcriptomics – RNA expression levels, transcription factor binding, chromatin structure information – Differential expression, clustering, functional enrichment, transcriptional regulation/causal reasoning • Proteomics – Proteins levels, protein structures, protein interactions – Protein identification, protein functional predictions, structural predictions, structural comparison, molecular dynamic simulation, mutation functional prediction, docking predictions, network analysis • Metabolomics – Metabolite/small molecule levels – Pathway/network analysis October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
- 15. Other kinds of Big Data submissions • Surveillance - detection of Ebola and other emerging infectious diseases • Risk factors – trajectories of cardiometabolic risk factors • Epidemiology – Global Burden of Disease studies published with IHME October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
- 16. The waterfall model October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
- 17. What we look for • Does the study ask an interesting and important question? • Does it provide a significant conceptual advance beyond what was already known? Does it change the way we think about a field, process, or particular issue in some way? • From The Lancet author page: “advances or illuminates medical science or practice, or that educates or entertains the journal's readers” • Are the experiments logically designed? Is this the right experiment to answer this question? • Is the paper well presented for a broad audience?
- 18. Clinical trial reporting • Protocol review • Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials http://www.consort-statement.org/ October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
- 19. The outcome of initial editorial evaluation 1) Return the manuscript to the authors with an explanation of why the editors feel it is not likely to be a strong candidate for publication 2) Send the paper out for review The editors identify appropriate reviewers, taking into consideration author suggestions and exclusions
- 20. The peer review process • We ask reviewers to provide comments on technical competence and on whether the paper provides a sufficiently significant conceptual advance • Reviewers can make confidential remarks to the editor as well as providing a report for the authors.
- 21. Why does it take so long? 21 Stage Time (in days) Submission to editor assignment 3.2 Editor assignment to reviewer invitation 6.6 Reviewer invitation to reviewer response 4.7 Reviewer agreement to review completion 12.1 Submission to first decision 42.6 Stage Time (in days) Submission to editor assignment 2.4 Editor assignment to reviewer invitation 13.1 Reviewer invitation to reviewer response 1.0 Reviewer agreement to review completion 17.5 Submission to first decision 34.8 Journal X Journal Y
- 22. What we look for in a reviewer’s report • A clear, concise summary of the conceptual ‘take home’ message of the paper, and whether this presents an exciting advance for the field • The key technical concerns and how these could be addressed • Any minor technical issues (if recommending revision) • A recommendation whether further experiments that can be completed in a timely fashion would make the paper appropriate
- 23. When the reviews come back • Reviewers don’t always agree, the ultimate decision is not a simple count of votes “for” and “against”. • The editor evaluates the reviewers’ comments and decides in collaboration with team, and sometimes in further consultation with reviewers, whether to invite a revised version of the paper • Our goal as editors is to communicate the decision and the grounds for the decision to the authors clearly and constructively.
- 24. When you receive the decision letter • Focus on the scientific issues and what will help you improve the paper • If the reviews or editorial evaluation cite legitimate limitations or lack of sufficient general interest, it is usually in your best interest to submit the manuscript to another journal. • If the reviewers and/or the editors have misunderstood a key aspect of the paper, consider an appeal • With resubmission, provide a detailed point- by-point response to reviewers’ comments
- 25. 25 Manuscript Submission Manuscript Submission Peer ReviewPeer Review ProductionProduction Publish and Disseminate Publish and Disseminate Edit and Prepare Edit and Prepare Archive and promote use Archive and promote use The Journal Publishing Cycle
- 26. Do pay attention to the (wo)man behind the curtain October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
- 28. 28 Solicit and manage submissions Solicit and manage submissions Manage Peer Review Manage Peer Review ProductionProduction Publish and Disseminate Publish and Disseminate Edit and Prepare Edit and Prepare Archive and promote use Archive and promote use The Journal Publishing Cycle
- 29. Electronic Journal PlatformsElectronic Journal Platforms Traditional Print JournalsTraditional Print Journals 29 Methods of Publication Dissemination ANDAND
- 30. 30 Other Methods of Dissemination Ad-supported Portals Pay-per-View Podcast/ Blogs/ Mobile Apps
- 31. 31 Manuscript Submission Manuscript Submission Peer ReviewPeer Review ProductionProduction Publish and Disseminate Publish and Disseminate Edit and Prepare Edit and Prepare Archive and promote use Archive and promote use The Journal Publishing Cycle
- 32. What could change? October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
- 33. Transparency • Data sharing plan requirement • More sophisticated deidentification • Uniformity requirements for metadata • Allowing other PIs data to allow for secondary analyses • IOM Report on Data Sharing https://iom.nationalacademies.org/Activities/ Research/SharingClinicalTrialData.aspx October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
- 34. Some final thoughts • Should editors be the gatekeepers? • How might pre-publication summary level results and lay summaries affect traditional peer-review publishing? • Lay summaries as part of the finished product of a publication? • Whose responsibility will it be to store all those data? Who will have access? How do we protect patients? October 19-25 | 2015 New York www.medicres.org
- 35. Thank You ! 35
Editor's Notes
- Approx 12,000 submissions in 2012 (includes trials, systematic reviews, viewpoints, comments, commissioned seminars)
- This visual gives you a better idea of the journal publishing cycle and the different steps along the way. Let me first go into the submissions and peer review steps in the cycle.
- These are average processing times for two actual journals, both in the same STM field (and remember, the averages can vary quite significantly from field to field). In Journal X, we see slightly more time spent on the initial check by the editorial office, as well as the reviewers taking longer to respond to invitations. In Journal Y, while the Editor takes longer to invite the first reviewers and the reviewers take longer to complete their reviews, the overall time from submission to first decision is more than a week shorter. What does this mean? In Journal X, we see a more typical pattern – reviewers take a few days to respond and only about half of them agree, whereas a quarter of the invited reviewers never respond. Maybe they’re too busy or away from their offices, maybe the manuscripts aren’t a great fit for their expertise. Editors try to be mindful of reviewers’ time and the fact that they are volunteers. Some journals invite more reviewers than they need at any one time, knowing that only about half will accept. Matters are complicated, too, if the reviewers don’t agree with each other. While the decision is ultimately the Editor’s, he/she may choose to seek additional reviews before making that decision.
- So now your manuscript has been accepted. The next major steps in the journal publishing cycle are the editing, preparation and production stages.
- The article production process is usually more complex than most people think and includes many steps along the way. After the manuscript is accepted via peer review, publishers undertake the copyediting, proofing, formatting, branding, pagination, and logo affiliation. These tasks are not as simple as might be expected. Metadata and identifiers need to be added to papers. Artwork quality needs to be checked and enhanced. The manuscript needs to be converted to XML and the artwork needs to be converted. The text itself needs to be edited, structured and enhanced. Authors need to check, correct and approve the proofs. Publishers can create an Electronic Warehouse and other electronic production tools to quicken production times. An XML format of the article is deposited in the Electronic Warehouse and from here, the article can then be published as an online HTML or PDF or it can be published as a print copy.
- Next, comes the dissemination stage, a task that has been affected dramatically by the digital age.
- Although traditionally scientific research has been communicated through print journals, by far most readers find and use the information they need online. Elsevier created ScienceDirect as our institutional platform. Not only does a platform like ScienceDirect allow for someone to access articles from ANY of our journals, it also allows us to develop productivity enhancing solutions like linking between articles and references, searching for articles, and providing lists of related articles. In addition, many of our journals maintain their own separate websites for personal subscribers, such as society members. The online version can offer options that are not available in the print version. The best options vary from discipline to discipline and article type to article type, but some examples include ScienceDirect’s Protein Viewer, Genome Viewer and Google Maps features.
- But an article’s online presence does not stop with electronic journal platforms. Many publishers are experimenting with other methods of dissemination such as advertising-supported models. In Elsevier’s case, we have created a portal called PracticeUpdate. This portal aims to connect healthcare professionals with news and information from different sources such as journal articles, expert commentaries, conference coverage and news. Podcasts and social media. We’ll talk more about this later. Our flagship journal, The Lancet, offers podcast summaries of issues, mobile feeds of articles, and blogs of the latest research initiatives. And finally, especially for point-of-care reference, scientific information can be effectively delivered via apps.
- Finally, let me touch up on the last step in the journal publishing cycle: archiving and promoting the use of the articles (we’ll talk about that in greater detail later).