Reviewing for journals
-
Upload
international-federation-for-information-technologies-in-travel-and-tourism-ifitt -
Category
Education
-
view
57 -
download
1
Transcript of Reviewing for journals
22.07.2015
1
Reviewing for journals
Doctoral Summer School 2015
Dr. Andreas Zins, MODUL University Vienna
Editor-in-Chief, IJCTHR
[with excerpts from webinars of Elsevier Publishing Campus]
Peer review - definition
• a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sureit meets the necessary standards before it ispublished or accepted
(Merriam-Webster)
2
22.07.2015
2
Before you accept or decline
• Motivation • Your area of expertise?• Potential conflict of interest?• Enough time?• Familiarize yourself with the peer reviewprocess of the journal
3
Peer Review: why would you volunteer to review
• „Give“• Academic duty
• „Take“•General interest in the area•Keep up-to-dat with the latest developments•Helps with own research and/or stimulatenew ideas•Builds association with prestigious journalsand editors•Aware of new research before others are•Career development
4
22.07.2015
6
Identification of Peer Reviewers
Reviewer database of the journal
Editorial board members of the journal
Other databases Scopus, PubMed, …
Specific tools provided by the journal publisher E.g. Elsevier‘s Find Reviewers Tool
Suitable reviewers proposed by the authors But not from their own inner circle
11
Peer Review is based on trust
The peer review process which in essence determineswhat becomes the public record of science is based on trust Trust between authors and editors
Trust between editors and reviewers
12
22.07.2015
7
Privileged Document
The manuscript you review is a confidential document. The content is and remains the exclusive property of the
authors.
You should not disclose it to others Who may use the information in their own research
If you have printed the manuscript You must keep it confidential until the review process has
been completed
After the final decision by the editor you must destroy it.
If you have shared responsibility for the review with a colleague you must provide that person‘s name andaffiliation to the editor.
13
Take-home MessagesFind out the value of the manuscript!
14
22.07.2015
8
The Peer Review Process - Overview
15
The Peer Review Process (I)
16
Regular articles are initially reviewed by at least tworeviewers
When invited, the reviewer receives the Abstract of themanuscript
The editor generally requests that the article be reviewedwithin 2 – 4 weeks
Articles are revised until the two reviewers agree on eitheracceptance or rejection, or until the editor decides that thereviewer comments have been addressed satisfactorily
The reviewer reports help the Editors to reach a decisionon a submitted paper The reviewer is the one who recommends; the editor decides!
22.07.2015
9
The Peer Review Process (II)
17
If a report has not been received after 4 weeks, theEditorial office contacts the reviewer
If there is a notable disagreement between the reports ofthe reviewers, a 3rd (or even 4th) reviewer may beconsulted
The anonymity of the reviewers is strictly maintained Unless a reviewer asks to have his/her identity made known
to the authors
The Peer Review Process (III)
18
Reviewers must not communicate directly with authors
All manuscripts and supplementary material must betreated confidentially by editors and reviewers
The aim is to have a „first decision“ to the authors within 4 –6 weeks after submission of the manuscript
Meeting these schedule objectives requires a significanteffort on the part of the Editorial staff, Editor and Reviewers
If reviewers treat authors as they themselves would like tobe treated as authors, then these objectives can be met.
22.07.2015
10
Issues reviewers look into:
19
What reviewers are NOT asked to do
20
Reviewers are NOT asked to Act as copy editors of the manuscript
Detect plagiarism, fraud and other ethics issues
These remain the authors‘ responsibilities Deficiencies can result in manuscript rejection
Or worse
22.07.2015
11
General impression and abstract
Look at the manuscript as a whole General comprehension of the manuscript
Language/style/grammar
Structure
Level of enthusiasm
Is the Abstract included? Is it a real summary of the paper?
Does it include the key results?
Does it contain unnecessary information?
Journals set a limit for the number of words, is the abstracttoo long?
21
Introduction
Is it effective, clear, and well organized?
Does it really introduce and put into perspective whatfollows?
Suggest changes in organization and point authors toapproprite citations if necessary
Be as specific as possible when giving feedback
22
22.07.2015
12
Assessing the methodology
Can a colleague reproduce the results?
Is the description of new methodology complete andaccurate?
Did the authors include proper references to previsoulypublished methodology?
Is the sample size large enough and was it selected in an appropriate way?
Was the data collected in accordance with acceptedpractice?
Could or should the authors have inlcuded supplementarymaterial?
23
Results and discussion (I)
Suggsst improvements in the way data is shown
Comment on general logic and on justification ofinterpretations and conclusions
Comment on the number of figures, tabes, and schemes
Write concisely and precisely which changes yourecommend
24
22.07.2015
13
Results and discussion (II)
List suggested style/grammar changes and other smallchanges separately
Suggest additional experiments or analyses
Make clear the need for changes/updates
Ask yourself whether the manuscript is worth beingpublished
25
Assessing the conclusions
Comment on importance, validity, and generality ofconclusions
Request toning down of unjustified claims andgeneralizations
Request removal of redundancies and summaries
The Abstract, not the Conclusion, summarizes the study
26
22.07.2015
14
References, tables, and figures
Check accuracy, number, and appropriateness of citations
Comment on tables and figures, and their quality andreadability
Comment on any footnotes
Assess completeness of legends, headers, and axis labels
Comment on need for color in figures
Check presentation consistency
27
References: tools for reviewers
Free access to ScienceDirect (all content published byElsevier)
Free access to Scopus (the world‘s largest abstract andcitation database
Reference-linking in PDF of the manuscript
28
22.07.2015
15
Reviewer report – For the authors
General impression Before commenting on parts of the manuscript, the reviewer
is asked to add a short summary and general impression ofthe article Ist imorance, language/style/grammar, and general level of
enthusiasm
Major comments Important issue that, in the opinion of the reviewer, must be
addressed by the authors before the manuscript is suitablefor publication
Minor comments Anything else worth mentioning
29
Reviewer report – For the editor
Comment on the novelty and significance
Recommend whether the manuscript is suitable forpublication or not, usually Accept
minor revision
Major revision
Reject
Must be consistent with comments for authors
These comments will not be disclosed to the author(s)!
30
22.07.2015
17
Editor’s view: What makes a good reviewer?
Provides an objective, thorough, and comprehensivereport
Provides well-founded comments for authors
Gives constructive criticism
Provides a clear recommendation to the Editor
Submits the report on time
33
Role and tasks of reviewer
The peer review process is based on trust
The scientific publishing enterprise depends largely on thequality and integrity of the reviewers
Reviewers should write reports in a collegial andconstructive manner
Reviewers should treat all manuscripts in the same manner they would like their own manuscript to be treated
34