Lecture 34, 35

A post-print is?

-a document that has been through the peer review process and incorporated reviewers comments. •It is the final version of the paper before it is sent off to the journal for publication. •It may be missing a final copyedit and won't be formatted to look like the journal. It still looks like the double spaced .doc file. •Sometimes, the term "pre-print" is used interchangeably with "post-print," but when it comes to permissions issues, it is important to clarify which version of a manuscript is being discussed.

A manuscript has a high likelihood of?

-eventually being published if it is well written, if the study methods were valid and reasonably rigorous, and if the authors clearly link their results to broader applications or implications. -As long as researchers are willing to learn from each set of reviewer comments, the manuscript will continue to become stronger with each submission.

At any stage of the review process, reviewers can recommend?

-manuscript rejection. They then choose from one of the following reasons: 1.The manuscript contains fundamental errors that cannot be rectified through author revisions 2.There are serious concerns about ethical issues in the manuscript that cannot be rectified through author revisions 3.The authors are unwilling or unable to address my concerns sufficiently to make this manuscript suitable for publication

Reviewers can recommend rejection for reasons including?

-manuscripts being out of scope, pseudoscientific or faith-based content and the singling out of persons or organizations for attack. -Should a reviewer withdraw from the review process, they retain their anonymity. The handling editor is alerted whenever a reviewer withdraws or recommends rejection.

This manuscript was resubmitted as a new manuscript 3 months after the first one was rejected.

1.A new author was added 2.The accepted manuscript was sent out to new reviewers with different opinions compared to the rejected manuscript reviewers. 3.Authors integrated some of the comments by the rejecting authors for the accepted revision. 4.BOTTOM LINE: Don't Give Up.

Authors are urged to remember some very important tips when reviewing galley proofs:

1.Pay close attention to deadlines; late submissions can delay publishing. 2.Always check author names and affiliations. 3.Make only critical changes that might affect conclusions (e.g., data revisions). 4.Update any "in-press" citations if published at the proof stage. 5.Correct typos. 6.Do not make extensive text changes or move blocks of text.

Nature receives approximately 10,000 papers every year and our editors reject about?

60% of them without review... In the end we publish about 7% of our submissions.

Informal Structure:

Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.

Formal Structure:

Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it's worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review.

In Both Cases:

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

Ethical issues can include?

include a lack of sufficient oversight and approval from relevant ethics committees and deceptive practices during research on the part of authors.

With most journals, Editors accept?

manuscripts for full-length articles when two to three reviewers have endorsed the submission for publication; this requirement is actually hard-coded into the system.

An external peer review can lead to three possible results:

rejection, an opportunity to revise and resubmit (R&R), or acceptance.

A pre-print is?

the original version of the manuscript as it is submitted to a journal. While the authors may have sought help from their colleagues in selecting data analysis techniques, improving manuscript clarity, and correcting grammar, the pre-print has not been through a process of peer

The overall summary should discuss?

what you perceive to be the biggest problems with your paper. For example, any points that more than one of the reviewers brought up are probably important. Any points that required a major change in the paper are probably important. Minor points can just be listed out in a bulleted form.

After a manuscript passes the quality control check, it is assigned to an?

•Academic Editor according to relevant expertise. •The Academic Editor is asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the standards set by the journal. •Editors may choose to perform the evaluation on the basis of their own expertise, or may assign external reviewers which is the most common case.

Many journals publish their?

•Acceptance vs Rejection rate. This information is worth noting because a 40% acceptance rate is much different than a 5% acceptance rate.New England Journal of Medicine Received 5,000 submissions in 2005, as of press time. Submissions increase 10% to 15% each year. 6% of submissions are eventually published, approximately 50% of papers are rejected before peer review.

When authors are invited to revise and resubmit (R&R) their manuscript to the same journal, they need to prepare two documents:

•An edited version of the manuscript •A file providing a response to each and every reviewer comment

The criteria for acceptance often are:

•Valid research question and hypothesis •Correct methodology including study design, data collection and analysis •Sufficiently referenced and grounded in existing literature •Editorial and ethical policies were adhered to •Clear presentation and adequate language level

The published article may be cited for the first time in?

•another article about a year or so after publication, and this completes the research cycle.

Different publishers might handle this step differently, but the galley proof stage remains?

•as the final review by the author before publication. •Most journals provide electronic galley proofs to the corresponding authors who have the option to make suggestions using an online form or provide a separate pdf document that has all the author corrections noted. •At this stage, only critical changes should be made, such as data corrections or names of missing authors. •Extensive content related revisions initiated by authors at this stage are usually not encouraged.

The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set out the?

•basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process. •It is hoped they will provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for journals and editors in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers

If an article is rejected without review, the authors should?

•be prepared to identify a different target journal that might be a better fit; this should be done prior to the initial submission (Back-up plan). •In the above case, the authors should update the manuscript to match the writing style and formatting requirements of the new target journal, and submit to the new journal as soon as possible.

The corresponding author is expected to?

•check with all the co-authors for their approval on any changes. •Extensive changes may result in an additional cost to the author. •Since publishers have set publication timelines in place, they usually provide authors with deadlines of 24 hours to 72 hours to revise and return the proofs. •All revisions must be made on the proof document; the manuscript itself is not available at this point, and any major revisions suggested by authors are subject to approval by the journal's editorial board. •For any publisher, a delay in returning revised galley proofs could postpone publication of the paper.

When receiving an invitation to peer review, the reviewer should be sent a?

•copy of the paper's abstract to help decide whether to do the review. Reviewers should respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.

•Each Journal will have a set of guidelines that they should follow. Some are very complex sets of instructions and others are very general. Peer review in all its forms plays an important role?

•in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. •The process depends to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. •Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and may be unaware of their ethical obligations.

Editorial Process: Initial checks New submissions go through an?

•in-house quality control check to ensure adherence to our policies and requirements, including: •ethical requirements for human and animal experimentation •financial disclosures •competing interests •data deposition

•Each journal will have its own procedures for External Peer Review. There are journals which allow just the Editor to be the peer reviewer especially if the submitted paper is in

•is in the Editor's field of expertise....this is rare though. •Most journals average about 3 external reviewers for each article submitted (Although I had one paper with 7 peer reviewers). •Many journals ask the reviewer for 2 sets of results, one for the Author's Eyes Only and one for the Editor's Eyes Only!

It is critical for you as the author to?

•not to get emotional about the reviewer comments... It is not personal. •Most reviewers have your best interest in mind and want you and the scientific community to benefit from your research. •Reviewers do not receive payment for their services. They use their own personal or professional time to do the review. Some article reviews may take all day or even two days to do correctly. •Just because a reviewer recommends a change, it does not mean you have to accept that change. Reply to the specific reviewer comment and then justify your answer to the editor. •Most reviewer comments, if followed, will result in a much stronger paper.

Manuscripts will not be seen by an Academic Editor or peer reviewers until they?

•pass this check. •Most reputable journals aim to check manuscripts as efficiently as possible, but timing may vary depending on whether they need to return the submission to the author for follow-up queries or additional information. •Scam journals may not even send the article out for review but accept it as long as they are paid to print the submitted article ~~~ BEWARE~~~

Once a manuscript is submitted, the journal's editorial staff does a?

•preliminary review and decides whether to send the manuscript to external peer reviewers. In the Author's information, you may be asked by some journals to suggest 3-5 individualsknown in your field of expertise as suggested reviewers.

Many journals give authors the option to have the unedited and unformatted version of their article?

•published shortly after acceptance as an accepted manuscript. •This service allows authors to make their results available to the community, in citable form, before publication of the edited article. •The edited and formatted advance article will replace the accepted manuscript as soon as it becomes available. •Journals that offer this service will give authors the opportunity to opt in during the online submission process. •Many journals no longer publish accepted manuscripts; this is because the average time from acceptance to publication is typically less than 10 days and therefore no longer feel the accepted manuscript service provides a significant benefit to our authors.

Page proofs (or galley proofs) are usually?

•sent to the author for review prior to the final paper being published. •Galley proofs are so named because in the days of hand-set letterpress printing in 1650s, the printer would set the page into galleys, that are the metal trays into which type was laid and tightened into place. ... Proofs created in a near-final version for editing and checking purposes are called page proofs.

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the?

•the Academic Editor. The time to receive a decision depends on how long it takes for the editor to assess the reviews. •While the Academic Editor is entering the decision, authors may see on-line the status "Decision in Process." •When the decision is final, authors will receive the notification by email and see the decision term in the submission system.

Once your paper is published?

•the circle is completed when one or more other scientists cite your paper in their paper. •For example, this published paper on a new species of parasite was cited by 12 other papers. Those papers were cited by oters....so your work gets greatly disseminated throughout the scientific community. •This is why it is worth the effort to get your research written up and published as soon as you can.