Peer Review Process and Responding to Reviewers - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Peer Review Process and Responding to Reviewers PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 149fc4-NTEyN


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Peer Review Process and Responding to Reviewers


Intimidating for new scientists. The Publication Process. The Peer Review Process. Editor examines title, abstract, and key words. Editor assigns 2-3 reviewers ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:65
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 16
Provided by: melind5


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Peer Review Process and Responding to Reviewers

Peer Review Process and Responding to Reviewers
  • APS Professional Skills Course
  • Writing and Reviewing for Scientific Journals

The Peer Review Process
  • A powerful tool
  • Cornerstone of the scientific community
  • Intimidating for new scientists

The Publication Process
The Peer Review Process
  • Editor examines title, abstract, and key words
  • Editor assigns 2-3 reviewers
  • Reviewers read manuscript
  • Reviewers recommend a decision to editor
  • Editor reads reviews and sends final decision to
  • Total time 4 6 wk (depends on journal)

Review Decisions
  • Accepted with no revisions
  • Accepted with revisions
  • Rejected

Why Manuscripts Get Rejected
  • Inappropriate for journal
  • Study was poorly designed
  • Conclusions made are not supported by data
  • Manuscript was poorly written or organized
  • Major revisions required

What to Do If Rejected
  • Read reviews very carefully
  • Do additional experiments if needed
  • Include other work to expand study if needed
  • Rewrite/revise the manuscript based on reviewers
  • Resubmission to same journal
  • Does the editor want a resubmission?
  • Must address the issues from the previous review
  • No means NO!
  • Submission to an alternate journal
  • Address issues from previous review
  • Could get the same reviewer(s)
  • Learn from the experience!

Revision Needed
  • Read editors letter and reviews
  • Revise the manuscript
  • Respond to reviewers
  • Resubmit revised manuscript

Editors Letter
  • Look for clues
  • Minor or major revisions needed
  • Critical issues to deal with
  • Advice if reviewers requests are contradictory
  • Contact if questions

Responding to Reviews
  • Read and get mad
  • Put reviews away for 24-48 hours
  • Re-read reviews
  • Try to understand what reviewers are saying
  • Discuss reviews with collaborators mentor
  • Consider which issues are critical
  • Give way on minor inconsequential points
  • Reviewer is ALWAYS right

Preparing the Revised Manuscript
  • Common revisions
  • Additional experiments
  • Additional data analysis
  • Re-write unclear or incomplete text
  • Colleague read and comment
  • Prepare manuscript for submission

Writing the Response to the Editor
  • Cover letter thanking reviewer and editor
  • Respond to each point
  • Detail changes made to manuscript
  • Point 1 Meaning not clear whether x happened
  • Response Sentence re-written to show x happened
  • Point 1 Period missing in sentence 1
  • Response Period inserted
  • If you think reviewer is wrong, give reasons and
    politely disagree
  • Colleague read and comment

Submitting Your Revisions
  • Return letter detailing responses to reviewers
    and revised manuscript to Editor
  • If you decide not to revise the manuscript,
    contact the Editor and withdraw it

After Acceptance
  • Final acceptance notice
  • Submit final text and graphics
  • Copyediting and art editing
  • Page proof approval
  • Color figure approval
  • Publication

Experience Issues
  • Peer review is a professional AND human endeavor
  • Critical to seek out advice from colleagues
  • Understanding decision based on editors cover
  • Understanding level of revision needed
  • Dealing with critical comments
  • Writing ability