The refereeing process a view from both sides

1
The refereeing process a view from both sides
Prof. Ray Cas (Geosciences) Assoc. Prof. Jenny
Read (Biological Sciences) (with John Beardall
Peter Junk)
2
Refereeing what happens
http//community.acs.org/journals/acbcct/cs/WIKI/t
abid/54/Default.aspx?topicExperimenting20with20
Peer--45-Review
3
Basic process -

• Manuscripts sent to Associate Editor
• who reads ms then decides to whom
• to send it for review
• Suggest suitable reviewers, and unsuitable
  reviewers
• Reviewers (2-3, usually anonymous) usually
  given 3-4
• weeks to assess article (journal-dependent).
• Occasionally adjudication is used.

4

• Associate Editor then considers
• reviewers reports and makes an
• assessment of the fate of the paper
• accept as is
• accept with minor revisions
• accept with major revisions
• reject

5

• Many of the higher impact journals will reject
  out of hand
• any MS that requires more than minor changes,
• some will encourage re-submission
• (sometimes as a new submission).

• Authors are then given 1-6 months to revise
  the MS.
• The AE usually reads the revision and
  reviewers
• comments again to see how they compare.
• Papers may be sent back to the original
  reviewers,
• or occasionally to new reviewers.

6

• If authors have responded appropriately to
  criticisms,
• either by adopting suggestions or arguing
  successfully why
• the comments dont need action, AEs will
  probably then
• recommend to the Editor in Chief that the MS
  be accepted
• (and tell authors this).

Final acceptance is always up to the Editor in
Chief.

• AEs sometimes will request further
  modifications to a MS
• if they consider that the authors have not
  responded
• appropriately.
• After acceptance, wait for proofs (weeks to
  months)

7
Role of referees
8
Role of referees
Before accepting a request to referee a paper
Consider if you will have the expertise to assess
the work
Are there any conflicts of interest, or have you
seen the same MS sent to you by another journal
(and presumably rejected then)? in both
these cases the AE needs to be told before the
process goes any further. Can you avoid bias?
9
Once you agree to review a MS
Does the paper cover new ground or is it
repetitious of previous work (e.g. same
experiments, different organism)? Sometimes this
is OK, but the authors should justify why
another paper is needed on the topic. Have the
authors set out the background properly to
introduce the significance of the work?
10
Are the methods described in such a way that
someone could follow them again? BUT the most
common mistake among graduate student authors is
to put in the same degree of detail that you
would for a thesis.
Are the results presented properly? clearly,
allow no repetition of data in tables and figures.
Are all figures clear, units appropriate and
symbols clear (remembering that figures will be
reduced in size)? AEs will also check this,
and not all reviewers will bother
11
Have the authors extracted the right information
from the data (could more be done)? Are their
interpretations correct (including statistics) or
are there alternative explanations that have been
missed? Have the results been put into the
context of the existing literature? Also -
attention to detail - concise, clear - impact,
significance - relevance to this journal (aims)
12
Accept or reject? accept as is accept with
minor revisions accept with major
revisions reject Finally you need to make a
recommendation think hard about whether there
is real merit in a paper and its potential
contribution to the topic. With increased
competition for space some editors are quite
tough. Try to make the merits of the paper clear
to the editor. May recommend a more appropriate
journal.
13
Is English the second language? Be more tolerant
of problems of expression. Above all, in your
comments to all authors, try to be considerate
and constructive.
14
From the authors viewpoint
The first question is which journal to
choose. Make sure the journal you select is the
right vehicle for the subject of the paper, e.g.
where is similar work published? Look at
processing times also some journals have very
long lags in publication important if you are
in a rapidly moving field!
15

• Pecking order if you think you have a really
  strong,
• influential paper, then go for a high impact
  factor journal.
• If the results are publishable, but less
  earth-shattering, then you may be better to aim
  slightly lower take your supervisors advice,
  they have lots of experience.
• In some cases you may choose to take a punt and
  try a high
• impact journal, and be prepared for a rejection
  and rapid turnaround for another lesser journal.
• It may be helpful to have your paper peer
  reviewed
• before submission speak to your supervisor

16
Some journals have different AEs, serving
different countries or different subject
areas. Think hard about which one to choose.
Although we like to think of scientists as being
dispassionate, some arent and have biases
against some fields of work or ideas.
Do make sure that your MS follows the recommended
format for the journal. AEs may send it out for
review anyway, but some will reject it out of
hand.
17
What to do when you get comments back

• Do not despair if the paper is rejected.
• This happens to everyone.
• Learn from the experience if possible revise
  the MS
• taking into account what the reviewers have
  said.
• Send it to another journal perhaps think
  again about the
• type of journal.
• Remember some Editors will reject manuscripts
  for
• relatively minor faults if they are pressed for
  space it
• does not necessarily mean your paper is weak.

18
Reviewers (and associate editors) have their own
biases, and may not be as objective as they
should be. They have their own idiosyncrasies
and frailties! Sadly - Be prepared for
occasional irrational, almost abusive and
dismissive comments that can be distressing.
19
2) If the paper is accepted without revisions
being required treat yourself to a drink and
a pat on the back, and savour the moment this
doesnt often happen!
3) More often a paper will be accepted subject
to revisions. Do not get despondent if a reviewer
has listed many points for your attention it
shows they have taken the time to go through
things thoroughly! It is important to address
each point the reviewers raise. Either change
your MS accordingly or argue the case carefully
as to why you are not making the recommended
change. And always be polite (and grateful) in
your response.
20
4) Do include in your response to the AE, a list
of points raised and the specific changes
made in the MS to address these points (or
why you havent changed things). This
makes the AEs job a lot easier, and can also
speed the whole editorial process up (and get
you published quicker!). And it helps
the AE see that you have taken issues
seriously
21

• After acceptance, wait for proofs (weeks to
  months)
• Ask supervisor for guidance in checking and
• responding to proofs.
• Take care in checking proofs journal errors
  are not
• unusual.

22

• Relationship between thesis and papers
• Publication of papers prior to thesis
  submission
• provides additional input to improve thesis
  quality
• It helps your track record facilitating
  success
• of postdoctoral or other job applications
• Writing your thesis as chapters that are
  structured to
• facilitate publication is advantageous
  discuss with
• supervisor

23
Finally
Being asked to referee papers or acting as an AE
can be an interesting experience you get to see
material to which you might not otherwise have
been exposed (or at least you see it
earlier!) But remember the refereeing process
is in confidence.
As an author it can be daunting to send your
first paper off, but, whatever the outcome -
learn from the experience. In many cases comments
gleaned from reviewers of papers can be used to
improve papers and theses (or vice versa).
Good luck!