Reviewing Manuscripts and Proposals: Reviewer and Editor Perspectives

1
Reviewing Manuscripts and Proposals Reviewer and
Editor Perspectives
An alternate title How reviewing helps us to
write and vice versa.
Larry Miller and Jim Kuwabara NRP WR
May 17 2007 USGS Menlo Park
2

• Request from Journal or Agency to review-
• Usually includes author(s) title and possibly
  an abstract
• May provide a link to the manuscript or proposal
• Should give a clear statement of the due date
• Often has a definition of the journals
  conflict of interest policy
• Should leave you the option to decline
  gracefully

You should respond promptly
3

• Things to think about immediately-
• Am I qualified to provide the review
• Can I do it in the time provided
• Is there a conflict of interest
• Are there other qualified reviewers
• Whats in it for me

OK- lets say you accept
Read the guidelines for reviewers provided by the
journal. For example http//aslo.org/lo/instructi
ons/reviewers.html
Next- read the thing
4

• Pitfalls to watch for-
• Is the paper (proposal) original
• Is the writing coherent
• Reviews take longer than youd guess. It may
  help to read several other papers but the work
  should stand on its own
• Its not your job to re-write the paper

5

• First impressions-
• Is this journal best suited to publish the work
• Is the quality of the science high
• Are the proper scientific methods used
• Are the data presented in the best possible way
• Are there any errors in the data or in their
  interpretation
• Does the manuscript tell a story Is it
  interesting

Its reasonable to decide by this time if you
plan to recommend rejection or acceptance
Next prepare a thoughtful review
6

• Think about helpful reviews of your work-
• Prioritize problems
• Can they be resolved by re-writing
• If no can you suggest another path to
  publication
• If yes then you should make suggestions

This will mean more work for you
A good review is a creative document that
advances science. In addition to identifying
shortcomings a good review provides guidance to
the author for improving the work and
presentation. Comments in a good review are made
in a helpful manner even if the paper is not
destined for publication harshly-worded comments
reduce the effectiveness of a review and diminish
the stature of the journal.
7

• Preparing a review as 2 letters-
• 1- General comments to the editor
• Introductory paragraph with title reference
  number and authors plus a quick summary of the
  report and its significance.
• Your recommendation to reject or accept or
  accept with major modification
• Basis for this recommendation

• 2- Specific comments to the author
• Introductory statement (optional)
• Specific comments- must be addressed

8
Specific comments to authors (cont)- Go through
the manuscript by section Refer to specific
page/line Yes you may pick nits. Will it help

• Common problems include
• Overreaching the data
• Improper use of statistics
• Random significant figures
• My pet peeve- prepositional phrases

9

• Considerations by section-
• Does the Abstract tell a complete story
• Does the Introduction present the problem and
  cite relevant references
• Are the Methods appropriate and well documented
• Are the Results organized logically
• Does the Discussion develop the ideas
• Figures and Tables should tell the story
• Captions titles and labels must be descriptive
• Note reference format inconsistencies or any
  omissions

10
Finished

• Review your review
• Anonymity
• Are you willing to see it again
• For proposals scrutinize the budget
• Review your comments to editor
• Submit and secure (or destroy) the original

Let the editor know ASAP if you cant meet your
obligation in time.
11
The Review Process from an Editors Perspective
(A view inside the black boxes)
Authors (MS Prep)
MS Submittal
Editorial Assignments
Reviewer Assignment
AE Rejection
Reviews Compiled
AE Recommendation To Editor
Conditional Acceptance or Rejection
Decision Letter
MS Acceptance
Publication Process
12
Qualification This is an Editors Perspective
(Many others on campus serve on Editorial Boards)
Authors (MS Prep)
MS Submittal
Editorial Assignments
Reviewer Assignment
AE Rejection
Reviews Compiled
AE Recommendation
Conditional Acceptance or Rejection
Decision Letter
MS Acceptance
Publication Process
13
Scientists on campus who currently serve on
Editorial Boards
Please let me know about any omissions (x4485 or
kuwabara_at_usgs.gov) a revised listing will be
provided in an upcoming NRP Branch Bulletin
14
The Review Process from an Editors Perspective

• Preparation for submission What role can
  Editors play at this stage
• What happens after the manuscript is submitted
• 3. The Editorial Office receives the reviews
  What then
• 4. Suggestions of how to respond to a decision
  letter

15
Editors can play a role in manuscript preparation

• After carefully reviewing the instructions to
  authors for the journal Contact the Editor or
  Associate Editor if in doubt about whether the
  manuscript is appropriate for the journal (Could
  save you a couple months of lag time and
  reformatting).
• Multitude of sponsoring organizations For
  example AGU Journals

Earth Interactions Geochemistry Geophysics
Geosystems Geophysical Research Letters Global
Biogeochemical Cycles International Journal of
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy Journal of Geophysical
Research (Atmospheres) Journal of Geophysical
Research (Biogeosciences) Journal of Geophysical
Research (Earth Surface) Journal of Geophysical
Research (Oceans) Journal of Geophysical
Research (Planets) Journal of Geophysical
Research (Solid Earth) Journal of Geophysical
Research (Space Physics) Nonlinear Processes in
Geophysics Paleoceanography Radio Science
Reviews of Geophysics Space Weather Tectonics
Water Resources Research Personal point of
view
16
Manuscript preparation (continued)
3. Appropriately develop the format of the paper
a. Articles - Longer fully developed analysis
and discussion of research topic. Can the
discussion be condensed into a note format
(cost and editorial time) b. Companion articles
Typically reviewed to stand alone although maybe
assigned to the same reviewers. c. Technical
notes Short (lt4 printed pages) description of
a new method or significant observations that
does not warrant rapid review. Review process is
still typically faster than an article. d.
Rapid communications Concise description of new
and important findings that warrant accelerated
review and publication (justification
required). e. Opinion articles and comments
17
Manuscript preparation (continued)
4. Important points of the submission letter

• How does this manuscript fit into the objectives
  of the
• manuscript and how does it extend our
  knowledge base
• (bullet the benefit). For example if there
  has been a
• recent publication by the submitting authors
  on a similar
• topic the advancement beyond that prior
  publication must
• be clear or weeks can be lost in
  correspondence before
• the review process even begins.
• b. Based on you knowledge of the research
  interests of the
• Associate Editors (AE) you can suggest that
  a particular
• AE might be most appropriate to administer
  the review
• process (scheduling commitments can trump
  that request).
• c. If given the option provide recommendations
  for
• reviewers and briefly explain why they are
  particularly
• qualified
• d. Make requests for researchers you do not wish
  to serve as
• reviewers (conflict of research interest)

18
The Review Process from an Editors Perspective

• Preparation for submission What role can
  Editors play at this stage
• What happens after the manuscript is submitted
• 3. The Editorial Office receives the reviews
  What then
• 4. Suggestions of how to respond to a decision
  letter

19
What happens after the manuscript is submitted
(A view into the Black Box)

• Black box circuits vary between journals. This
  is how it generally works.
• Editor assigns AE to coordinate review process
• (In multi-disciplinary work it may help to
  suggest an AE.)
• 3. AE reviews manuscript and
• a. Recommends rejection outright - Is it
  reasonable to
• commit the human and material resources
  for the
• review process
• b. Reviewers selected (Hands off/ Hands on
  methods)
• 4. Authors can check on review status (mindful of
  prudent time scales)

20
This may be a disappointment but your
manuscripts are NOT always assigned to an AE who
has a corresponding research focus

• Theres only so much subject coverage that a
  journals editorial board can provide.
• 2. Be sure to be clear about the advancements
  made suggested AE and suggested reviewers.

21
A view into the Black Box (continued)
What is the Editor or AE trying to do 1. By
any measure (e.g.Impact factor) to maintain or
improve the quality of the journal as
representative of the sponsoring
organization (coverage of new research
directions) 2. Screen and identify clear
advancements in the field 3. Try to
efficiently use human and material resources in
the review process. 4. Provide
objective constructive advice to the authors
regarding their work (synthesis of
evaluations) as clearly and
specifically as possible. 5. Complete the
service of items 1-3 in a timely fashion.
NOTE In interactions with the Editors and AEs
it may be prudent to recognize that
they typically serve the journals and
sponsoring organizations without pay.
22
The Review Process from an Editors Perspective

• Preparation for submission What role can
  Editors play at this stage
• What happens after the manuscript is submitted
• 3. The Editorial Office receives the reviews
  What then
• 4. Suggestions of how to respond to a decision
  letter

23
The Editorial Office receives the reviews What
then

• The AE synthesizes the information in terms of
  consistencies and
• inconsistencies between reviews.
• B. Based on the AE appraisal the reviewers
  comments are prioritized and a
• recommendation to the Editor is prepared
• The AE might also recommend to the Editor that
  even after all comments
• are incorporated into the manuscript that
  the authors might be better
• served by submitting the revised manuscript
  to another journal.
• D. The Editor sends out a decision letter to the
  authors based on the
• AE recommendation (sometimes discussions
  with the AE) reviewer comments and his own
  evaluation.

24
The Review Process from an Editors Perspective

• Preparation for submission What role can
  Editors play at this stage
• What happens after the manuscript is submitted
• 3. The Editorial Office receives the reviews
  What then
• 4. Suggestions of how to respond to a decision
  letter

25
Authors receive the decision letter. What then
A. Acceptance or conditional acceptance Revise
manuscript as needed 1. When resubmitting
the revisions be sure to clearly state how an
where in the revised manuscript each
comment has been incorporated into the
revision. Tabulated responses (or at least
indexed tracked changes) are useful.
Response times are much longer if the AE or
reviewer has to search for the
revisions. 2. If a comment is rejected be
clear (with references) why after careful
deliberation the comment was not
incorporated.
26
Authors receive the decision letter (continued)
B. Rejection 1. Look over the decision
letter and reviewer comments carefully. How
strong is the rejection Is there potential
for a positive outcome to a resubmittal
(if in doubt correspond tactfully with the
Editor or AE) Varies with journal (WRR no
longer has a reject with encouragement to
resubmit). 2. Use the decision letter
and comments to improve the manuscript and
prepare revisions for resubmittal or
submission to another journal.
27
Ideally the review process is constructive with
Editorial-board members serving primarily as
facilitators rather than gatekeepers.