2012 1

Manuscript Review

Prepared by Noni MacDonald MD FRCPc Editor-in-Chief Paediatrics and Child HealthFormer Editor-in -Chief CMAJ

www.newmoon.uk.com/ritual/magickal-ink.gif

2012 2

Objectives By the end of this discussion, the

participant will be able to

1. Outline the steps for manuscript review and acceptance at a medical journal

2. List the major factors peer reviewers are asked to take into account in reviewing a manuscript

3. Describe other factors editors also consider

4. Explain editorial terms like –intercept, revise, overhaul

2012 3

Authors Manuscript

Editor and Editorial Staff

Intercept*

Peer Review1234

Reject

Revise

Galley Proofs

Issue for publication set

Paper publishedOnline- print

Re-submit

2012 4

Intercept-The Big “NO” LetterEditor + an associate editor

looked over the manuscript: decided-

not a fit by topic * bad science* poorly written* too many articles on topic not fit format of journal other……No Reviews attached

upload.wikimedia.org

2012 5

Authors Manuscript

Editor and Editorial Staff

Intercept

Peer Review*1234

Reject

Revise

Galley Proofs

Issue for publication set

Paper publishedOnline- print

Re-submit

2012 6

Peer Review 1Editor or assoc ed decides is worthy

to go out for review2 to 6 reviewers selected • may include 1 or 2 suggested by author• looking for at least 2 to 3 reviews to come in• electronic review invitations faster, attached to database

20127

Peer Review: CriteriaScientific Quality methods -including stats data for conclusionsPresentation clarity of writing title - specific - fits content abstract - brief, clear figures and tables

Research Violations ethics: human,animalRating rank to sci in fieldConfidential novelty, significanceComments for Author # each, design, data consistent with rating

2012

Peer Review Criteria Check

List 1. Importance of research question2. Originality of research3. Delineation of strengths & weaknesses methodology/experimental / statistical/interpretation of results4. Writing style-table /figure presentation,citations accurate5. Ethical concerns human,animal, no plagerism, no COI6. Is it a good read?

Benos et al Advances in Physiology Education 2003;27:47-52

Roberts et al. Academic Psychiatry 2004:28:81-87

2012 9

Peer Review: Criteria

Manuscript “privileged” information do not disclose to othersDestroy after your

review- paper,tables, figures etc

If shared work of review- when report state with whom did this

2012 10

Peer Review: Editors Evaluation

1. Thoroughness, comprehensiveness2. Timeliness3. Citation of evidence to support

critique4. Constructive criticism5. Objectivity6. Clear statement re priority and

appropriatenessBenos et al Advances in Physiology Education 2003;27:47-52

2012 11

Authors Manuscript

Editor and Editorial Staff

Intercept

Peer Review1234

Reject

Revise

Galley Proofs

Issue for publication set

Paper publishedOnline- print

Re-submit

2012 12

Reject Letter

Take time review comments editor, reviewers Consider submit to another journal resubmit to same journal: address all concerns

bp0.blogger.com

2012 13

Authors Manuscript

Editor and Editorial Staff

Intercept

Peer Review1234

Reject

Revise

Galley Proofs

Issue for publication set

Paper publishedOnline- print

Re-submit

2012 14

Revise = Accept One step closerAddress all comments change what can, explain why not if notTake your time but do NOT dawdle serious work May go out for review

again……commerce.concordia.ca

2012 15

Authors Manuscript

Editor and Editorial Staff

Intercept

Peer Review1234

Reject

Revise

Galley Proofs

Issue for publication set

Paper publishedOnline- print

Re-submit

2012 16

Galley Proofs = Accept 1. Only get one set2. Usually on line or email3. Answer all queries4. Check with great care - tables - figures - text = data - citations - authors names and spelling5 Time deadline!!!!6. Can now say article “in press” - often up online epub ahead of

print – can cite

2012 17

Authors Manuscript

Editor and Editorial Staff

Intercept

Peer Review1234

Reject

Revise

Galley Proofs

Issue for publication set

Paper publishedOnline- print

Re-submit

2012 18

We are building our boat and sailing it at the same time.

David Heymann WHO on SARS crisis

Explore.ca

Peggy’s Cove, Canada

Research and Writing a Paper

Reviewing Your Paper

2012 19

Authors Manuscript

Editor and Editorial Staff

Intercept

Peer Review1234

Reject

Revise

Galley Proofs

Issue for publication set

Paper publishedOnline- print

Re-submit