Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Peer Review Process and Responding to Reviewers APS Professional Skills Course: Writing and Reviewing for Scientific Journals."— Presentation transcript:

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

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

3 The Publication Process

4 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 author Total time = 4 – 6 wk (depends on journal)

5 Review Decisions Accepted with no revisions Accepted with revisions Rejected

6 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

7 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 comments 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!

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

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

10 Responding to Reviews Read and get mad Put reviews away for 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

11 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

12 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

13 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

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

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


Download ppt "Peer Review Process and Responding to Reviewers APS Professional Skills Course: Writing and Reviewing for Scientific Journals."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google