Can Authors Editors help Expedite Peer Review of the Manuscripts they Edit.pptx

8/12/2019 Can Authors Editors help Expedite Peer Review of the Manuscripts they Edit.pptx

1/22

Can Authors Editors Help

Expedite Peer Review of theManuscripts They Edit?

Presented by:

Donald Samulack, PhDPresident, U.S. Operations

Cactus Communications / Editage


2/22

The World Is so FlatIts Starting to Curl!

2


3/22

Survival of the Fittest

3

Territory size shows the proportion of all scientific papers published in 2001 written by authors living there. The number of scientific papers published by researchers in the United States was more than three times as

many as were published by the second highest-publishing population, Japan.

Source: http://sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/worldmapper/display.php?selected=205 (April 15, 2013)

Science Research


4/22

Survival of the Fittest

4

Science Growth

This map shows the growth in scientific research of territories between 1990 and 2001. If there was no increase in scientificpublications that territory has no area on the map.

In 1990, 80 scientific papers were published per million people living in the world, this increased to 106 per million by 2001.This increase was experienced primarily in territories with strong existing scientific research. However, the United States,with the highest total publications in 2001, experienced a smaller increase since 1990 than that in Japan, China, Germany andthe Republic of Korea. Singapore had the greatest per person increase in scientific publications.

Source: http://sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/worldmapper/display.php?selected=206 (April 15, 2013)


5/22

There Is a Tsunami Coming

5

Current and projected publication trends

Source: Royal Society of London, Knowledge, Networks, and Nations, 2011


6/22

There is a Tsunami Coming

6 Source: http://sciencewatch.com/grr/building-bricks (April 15, 2013)


7/22

Unfortunately, neither the researchers fascination with their

work, nor their desire for a clear-cut recipe for success inpublishing is of much help in actually getting published.

Benson and Silver, 2013 (What Editors Want)

The Research Dilemma

7


8/22

Anything you do that makes the job of the Journal Editor orthe Peer Reviewer easier, makes the manuscript moreattractive!

Success = Pleasing the Gatekeepers

8


9/22


10/22

Q: How do East-Asian submissions compare with thosefrom other non-English speaking countries?

In terms of compliance with ethical guidelines

Bias Surrounding Research Integrity

10

1.9%

44.4%

35.2%

18.5%East Asian submissions better

East Asian submissions worse

Submissions from all non-English-speaking countries similar

I don't know

A survey of 54 journal editors ofEnglish-language US and European journals


11/22

Quirks of the English Language

11

You dont have to be really smart to read this. In theEnglish language it doesn't matter in what order theletters are in a word. The only important thing is thatthe first and last letters are positioned in the right

place. The rest of the letters can be jumbled and youcan still read it without problem. This is because thehuman brain does not read every letter by itself, butlooks for sentence and language patterns.

You dnot have to be raelly smrat to raed tihs. In theElgnsih lugnagae it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr theltteers are in a wrod. The olny iprmoatnt tihng is tahtthe frist and lsat ltteers are pneiostiod in the rghit

pclae. The rset of the lrtetes can be jmulebd and youcan sitll raed it wiuthot porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae thehuamn barin deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, butlokos for sncetnene and luganage petatnrs.


12/22

Common Reviewers Criticisms

12

Importance of the Topic Rehash of established facts Insignificant research question Irrelevant or unimportant topic Low reader interest Little clinical relevance Not generalizable

Study Design Poor experimental design Vague/inadequate method description Methods lack sufficient rigor Failure to account for confounders No control or improper control No hypothesis Biased protocol Small sample size Inappropriate statistical methods,

or statistics not applied properly

Adapted from: Byrne DW. Publishing your medical research paper. What they dont teach in medicalschool. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1998.


13/22

Common Reviewers Criticisms

13

Overall Presentation ofStudy and Findings Poor organization Too long and verbose Failure to communicate clearly Poor grammar, syntax, or spelling Excessively self-promotional Poorly written abstract

Interpretation of the Findings Erroneous or unsupported conclusions Conclusions disproportionate to results Study design does not support inferences

made Inadequate link of findings to practice Uncritical acceptance of statistical results Failure to consider alternative

explanations Unexplained inconsistencies Inflation of the importance of the findings Interpretation not concordant with the

data Inadequate discussion

Adapted from: Byrne DW. Publishing your medical research paper. What they dont teach in medicalschool. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1998.


14/22

The pending impact of the publication tsunami,administrative challenges of manuscript triage, growingburden of peer review, and inefficiencies in journalproduction processes necessitate studies on how to makethe process more efficient.

While we cant fix the tsunami and we are probablyonly experiencing the first swell we can look up-streamto build efficiencies in pre-submission and pre-peer reviewprocesses.

Looking for Solutions

14


15/22

What is the role of professional editing services (authorseditors) in helping non-native English-speaking (NNES)authors get their work published?

Is there a place for manuscript screening services?

Is there a rationale for commercialization of peer review?

Where should efforts be placed?

Looking for Solutions

15


16/22

First, we looked for weaknesses in how journals structure theirInstructions for Authors in an attempt to identify how journalsshould communicate these instructions more effectively. Best Poster at the Council for Science Editors meeting in Montreal, Canada

in May, 2013 (a copy of the poster can be found at our booth)

More recently, we asked whether there were any specific errors peerreviewers most frequently point out in manuscripts of non-nativeEnglish- speaking (NNES) authors that an authors editor could/shouldfix before manuscript submission; the premise being that if thesecould be fixed before submission, then the burden on the peerreviewer would be lessened, and the process expedited.

Research by Editage

16


17/22

Study Design

17 Study design and execution by Shazia Khanam and Clarinda Cerejo at Editage; accepted for publication inLearned Publishing (ALPSP).Awarded Best Poster at the ISMTE/EASE conference in Brussels, Belgium in September, 2013.


18/22

Study Results (Slide 1 of 3)



19/22




20/22




21/22

An authors editor, in addition to checking the grammar, writingquality, and style of manuscripts they edit, should point outinstances of incomplete and unclear reporting, especially in theMethods and Results sections. This is crucial for the study to beable to be replicated by other research groups.

Special attention should also be paid to ensure that figures andtables are consistent with (but not redundant to) the

information presented in the text.

Study Conclusions (1 of 2)

21


22/22

Further, an authors editor should provide the author tips toimprove the overall structural organization of the Results andDiscussions sections.

A qualified authors editor helping an author address theseaspects before submission will allow the peer reviewer to focuson the validity of the science and novelty of the study.

Thus , an authors editor can indirectly help expedite the peerreview process.

Study Conclusions (2 of 2)

22

Can Authors Editors help Expedite Peer Review of the Manuscripts they Edit.pptx

Documents

Transcript of Can Authors Editors help Expedite Peer Review of the Manuscripts they Edit.pptx