A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T Y

1
Scientific Publishing, Flakkebjerg, September
1st, 1230-1530

• Reviewing scientific papers
• Bo Melander
• Department of Integrated Pest Management,
  Research Centre Flakkebjerg

2
My background

• 20 years in agricultural research
• Area of expertise
• Physical and cultural weed control methods
• Weed ecology
• Subject editor for Weed Research, 5th year
• 5-7 manuscripts per year
• First response 20 accepted, 60 reject
  resubmission (lt50 are resubmitted), 20 rejected
• Accept
• Minor revision
• Reject resubmit
• Reject

3
When receiving a manuscript

• Forwarded by the editor in chief
• Is the subject within the scope of the journal?
• Weed harrowing but no plants
• A first glance before selecting reviewers
• Selection of reviewers, 1-3 but mostly 2
• Expertise
• Availability, can be a big problem!
• No clash of interests
• Same nationality?
• Bad chemistry

4
Reviewing process

• Reporting within a month voluntarily work
• Large variation in the quality of reviewing
• Discrepancy between the reports, one recommends
  acceptance the other rejection
• Subject editor makes the final decision

5
What are we looking for?

• Is the paper well prepared?
• Well organised?
• English readable? Many are offering writing
  assistance at a reasonable price
• Does it follow the house style of the journal?
• Character, type size and spacing
• Abbreviations, symbols and nomenclature
• Scientific names
• Tables and Figures
• Reference citations reference list
• Take a look in author guidelines and in papers
  already published
• Never forward a paper edited according to the
  house style of another journal!!

6
What are we looking for?

• The summary
• Background
• Objective
• Materials methods
• Main results
• Implications for science practise
• A lot in 200 words!

7
What are we looking for?

• The Introduction
• Background
• Is the problem clearly and consisely explained
  with references to the most recent and relevant
  litterature?
• The perennial weed species Elymus repens has
  increased in organic farming bla bla bla
• Rationale
• What is the idea behind the research undertaken?
• Where is the lack in knowledge - novelty?
• What are the hypotheses?
• What are the likely benefits?
• Traditional stubble cultivation to control E.
  repens conflicts with nutrient handling and E.
  repens should be controlled over a short period
  bla bla bla. There is a need to develop a
  strategy that bla bla bla

8
What are we looking for?

• The Introduction
• Objective
• Precise, unambiguous and consise
• To investigate the effect of 3 new strategies
  against E. repens that meets the rquirements bla
  bla bla

9
What are we looking for?

• Materials Methods
• Are the experiments clearly explained?
• Can it be repeated by others?
• Is the work scientifically sound
• Is the statistics correct?

10
What are we looking for?

• Materials Methods
• Is the work scientifically sound?
• Typical mistakes
• Not enough replicates
• Experiments not repeated in time and space
• Lack of information about the pests to be
  controlled (example steaming in forestry)
• Lack of information about the treatments applied,
  (date, energy applied, driving speed etc.)
• Strange changes of the experimental environment
  (example E. repens control)
• No lessons learned from similar studies,
  significant errors could have been avoidedm
  (example flame weeding)

11
What are we looking for?

• Materials Methods
• Is the statistics correct??
• Typical mistakes
• Inadequately explained
• number of replicates
• transformation
• distribution of data
• unbalanced or balanced data
• Analyses of variances vs. Regression analyses
• Quantitative vs. qualitative variables (example
  steaming in forestry)
• Split-plot and split-split-plot designs
• Tests of main plots and sub-plots and
  sub-sub-plots
• Lack of co-variance analyses

12
What are we looking for?

• Results
• Clear and stringent presentation of results
• Good balance between figures and tables
• Are the main findings highlighted?
• Are the highlighted results justified by the
  data?

13
What are we looking for?

• Discussion
• Relations to other studies
• Critical reflection on the results
• Where are the findings leading?
• Further research needed?

14
Major reasons for rejection

• Lack of novelty
• Lack of repetition in time and/or space
• Wrongly conducted treatments
• Lack of significant information the results are
  not reproducible
• Incorrect statistics, can normally be solved
• Extremely poor manuscript poor English, poor
  structure, lack of clarity