Pointers for Surviving the Editorial Process

1
Pointers for Surviving the Editorial Process

• Peter B. Imrey, Ph.D.
• Cleveland Clinic Foundation and Case Western
  Reserve University

2
How does the review process work?

• Editor makes a value judgment
• Importance of problem
• Scope of eventual influence
• Size of interested audience in journal readership
• Innovation either technical or applied
• Technical quality
• Completeness of problem solution
• Quality of exposition

3
How does the review process work?

• Editor selects referees.
• Referees provide feedback to authors and editor.
• Recommendation for decision
• reject
• resubmit after major revision
• resubmit after minor revision
• accept outright
• indication of priority for the journal

4
How does the review process work?

• Feedback to authors should
• address the content of the paper, i.e., is what
  was attempted done well?
• be frank, but constructive
• be detailed, but not obsessively so
• suggest what would make the quality of the paper
  better, including for another journal.
• suggest what would make the paper more
  appropriate for this journal, if a revision might
  be acceptable.
• NOT be flippant or dismissive another persons
  research potential and career are in your hands.

5
How does the review process work?

• Feedback to editors should
• focus on the issues of quality and
  appropriateness that should guide the editorial
  decision
• clarify reasons for decision recommendation
• explain nuances of recommendation, any
  ambivalence about recommendation
• be very straightforward, NOT sacrifice clarity
  for diplomacy.

6
How does the review process work?

• Editor makes decision
• by default, follows referees.
• can exercise discretion, including obtaining
  additional reviews if referrees disagree.
• may equivocate the editors way of giving the
  author a chance to prove him or herself
• may be very directive your choice whether to
  comply.
• may sometimes by insufficiently attentive and
  make mistakes.
• much to do
• not expert in your topic.
• may not recognize an unfair review these do
  occur.

7
Learning from reviews

• Dont be thin-skinned.
• Allow yourself to be irritated at first reading.
  You wont be able to help it.
• Put the reviews aside for 2-3 days after first
  reading.
• Ask for help.

8
Learning from reviews

• Seriously consider, point by point.
• Reread the review. For each comment, put
  yourself in the readers place and try to
  understand why the reviewer felt that way.
• Divide the comments into categories.
• Those with which you agree.
• Those you disagree with, but with which youre
  willing to comply.
• Those you disagree with, but with which youre
  unwilling to comply but that do not involve core
  aspects of the paper.
• Those you disagree with, but with which youre
  unwilling to comply because they involve core
  aspects of the paper that are crucial to maintain.

9
Learning from reviews

• Reconsider items in category 3), and consider
  converting to category 2).
• Divide the comments in category 4) into
• those that seems specifically dependent on choice
  of journal, and
• those that address general content and/or quality
  and would be relevant for any journal.
• Put aside for another day or two.

10
Learning from reviews

• Now, dispassionately, consider practical choices.
• Revise and resubmit, if available.
• Decline to revise and withdraw.
• Submit as is to alternative journal.
• Revise and submit to alternative journal.
• Change the concept of the paper.
• Give up go on to next project.

11
Responding to reviews

• Be constructive, polite, somewhat deferential.
  Dont insult the decision-makers.
• Emphasize critical content issues.
• Explain and point to substantive changes you have
  made to comply.
• Give your substantive reasons for not complying
  with requests for substantive changes.
• You can argue against requested changes that go
  well beyond the scope of the current paper.

12
Responding to reviews

• Try to acknowledge all but trivial comments. Be
  very point-by-point specific.
• But acknowledgement does not require changes.
• You can respectfully, firmly challenge the
  editors, especially on process.
• But make sure you have a leg to stand on, and do
  not harangue.
• Some real-life examples of when you should appeal.

13
Some real-life examples of when you should.

• Mandated reconciliation of contradictory reviews.
• Reversal of acceptance due to change in editors.
• Rejection due to non-existent prior publication.
• Rejection due to discontinuity in review process.