The refereeing process a view from both sides

1
The refereeing process a view from both sides
John Beardall School of Biological
Sciences Monash University, Clayton,
2
Refereeing what happens
http//community.acs.org/journals/acbcct/cs/WIKI/t
abid/54/Default.aspx?topicExperimenting20with20
Peer--45-Review
3
Basic process -

• Manuscripts sent to Associate Editor who reads ms
  then decides to whom to send it for review

• Reviewers (2-3) usually given 10 days to a month
  to come up with their assessment (very
  journal-dependent).

• Associate Editor then looks over reviewers
  reports and makes an assessment of the fate of
  the paper accept as is accept with minor
  revisions accept with major revisions reject

• Many of the higher impact journals will reject
  out of hand any MS that requires more than minor
  changes, but some will encourage re-submission.

• Authors then given anything from a month to 3
  months to revise the MS and get the revised
  version back to the AE. The AE then usually reads
  the revision and reviewers comments again to see
  how they compare.

• If authors have responded appropriately to
  criticisms, either by adopting suggestions or
  arguing successfully why the comments dont need
  action, AEs will probably then recommend to the
  Editor in Chief that the MS be accepted (and tell
  authors this).

Final acceptance is always up to the Editor in
Chief.

• AEs sometimes will request further modifications
  to a MS if they consider that the authors have
  not responded appropriately. I still reject 5-10
  of papers because revisions have been carried
  out inadequately

4
Role of referees
5
Role of referees
Before accepting a request to referee a paper
Consider if you will have the expertise to assess
the work
Are there any conflicts of interest or have you
recently seen the same MS sent to you by another
journal (and presumably rejected then)? in
both these cases the AE needs to be told before
the process goes any further.
Once you agree to review a MS
Does the paper cover new ground or is it
repetitious of previous work (e.g. same
experiments, different organism)? Sometimes this
is OK, but the authors should justify why there
is a need for yet another paper on the topic.
Have the authors set out the background properly
to introduce the significance of the work?
Are the methods described in such a way that
someone could follow them again? BUT the most
common mistake among graduate student authors is
to put in the same degree of detail that you
would for a thesis.
Are the results presented properly? clearly,
allow no repetition of data in tables and figures
6
Are all figures clear, units appropriate and
symbols clear (remembering that figures will be
reduced in size)? AEs will also check this, and
not all reviewers will bother (I do)
Have the authors extracted the right information
from the data (could more be done) are their
interpretations accurate or are there alternative
explanations that have been missed are results
put into the context of the existing literature?
Finally you need to make a recommendation here
I think hard about whether there is real merit in
a paper and its potential contribution to the
topic. With increased competition for space some
editors get quite tough and almost look for
excuses for rejecting MSS
7
From the authors viewpoint
The first question is which journal to choose.
Make sure the journal you select is the right
vehicle for the subject of the paper. Look at
processing times also some journals are
developing a reputation for very long lags in
publication important if you are in a rapidly
moving field!
Pecking order if you think you have a really
strong, influential paper, then go for a high
impact factor journal. If the results are
publishable, but less earth-shattering, then
you may be better advised to aim slightly lower
take your supervisors advice, they have lots of
experience. In some cases you may chose to take a
punt and try a high impact journal, and be
prepared for a rejection and rapid turnaround for
another lesser journal.
Some journals have different AEs, serving
different countries or different subject areas.
Think hard about which one to send your MS to.
Although we like to think of scientists as being
dispassionate, some arent and for some of our
work I have had to be strategic about where I
sent the papers (e.g. UV work)
Do make sure that your MS follows the recommended
format for the journal (I still get several MSS a
year with the wrong format). AEs may send it out
for review anyway, but some will reject it out of
hand!
8
What to do when you get comments back

• Do not despair if the paper is rejected. This
  happens to everyone at some time or another.
  Learn from the experience if possible revise
  the MS taking into account what the reviewers
  have said and send it to another journal (or the
  same one, depending on circumstances). Remember
  some Editors will reject manuscripts for
  relatively minor faults if they are pressed for
  space it does not necessarily mean your paper
  sucks!

2) If the paper is accepted without revisions
being required treat yourself to a drink and a
pat on the back, and savour the moment this
doesnt often happen!
3) More often a paper will be accepted subject
to revisions. Do not get despondent if a reviewer
has listed a lot of points for your attention
it shows that they have taken the time to go
through things thoroughly and found the paper
interesting enough to do so! In this case it is
important that you address each and every point
the reviewers raise. This is just as important if
you think the point valid and have changed your
MS accordingly as it is if you think the reviewer
was on something particularly strong at the time
and missed the point. If the latter, make sure
you argue the case properly!
4) Do include in your response to the AE, a list
of points raised and the specific changes made in
the MS to address these points (or why you
havent changed things). This makes the AEs job a
hell of a lot easier, but can also speed the
whole editorial process up (and get you published
quicker!).
9
Finally
Being asked to referee papers or acting as an AE
can be an interesting experience you get to see
material to which you might not otherwise have
been exposed (or at least you see it earlier!)
As an author it can be daunting to send your
first paper off, but again, whatever the outcome
(hopefully good) - learn from the experience. In
many cases comments gleaned from reviewers of
papers can be used to good effect to improve
theses (or vice versa).
Good luck!