BUILDING “JOURNAL KARMA”: Tips for reviewing manuscripts to uphold integrity of peer review process and enhance the quality of paper Bruce Lubotsky Levin, DrPH, MPH Associate Professor & Head Behavioral Health Concentration Dept. of Community & Family Health and Editor-In-Chief, Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research University of South Florida 8/18/2016

Learning Objectives Understand the life cycle of a manuscript in peer review. Define the peer review process. List the duties, activities, and responsibilities of journal manuscript reviewers. Understand the implications of reviewing manuscripts for writing manuscripts

AUTHOR PERSPECTIVE OF PEER REVIEW PROCESS

LIFE CYCLE OF A MANUSCRIPT Author Submission Editorial Processing Blind Peer Review Editorial Decision Revise, Reject, or Publish

PURPOSE OF PEER REVIEW Determine originality of the work Determine validity & importance of the findings Improve quality of published paper Detect plagiarism or fraud Select the best manuscripts for a journal Each manuscript undergoes at least two reviews

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES 1731 Society of Edinburgh, G.B. Consensus Building Process Build Specific Knowledge Base Publish best quality papers Original Contributions: Detect plagiarism or fraud Internal, External, Blind Reviews

WHO SHOULD REVIEW?

WHAT DO EDITORS LOOK FOR IN REVIEWERS? Expertise in one or more areas of paper Objectivity No conflicts of interest Good judgment Think clearly & logically Write good critiques Accurate Readable Helpful to editors and authors Timely

THE EDITOR’S IDEAL REVIEWER Is a researcher who is working in the same discipline as the subject of the paper, yet is not in direct competition with the authors Will understand the hypotheses underlying the work Will be familiar with the model systems & methods used Will be able to judge the quality of the data & analyses and assess the validity of the conclusions Will be able to assess the significance of the work

DETERMINE WHETHER TO REVIEW Adequate Time to Review Sufficient Expertise Focus Area Literature Methodology including statistical/qualitative Conflict of Interest Familiar with Journal & Referencing Style Familiar with Journal Readers

Before You Start… Do I… Have the expertise? Should I accept this review invitation? Have the expertise? Do I… Have the time to complete a thoughtful review?

WHAT IS “EXPERTISE” AND DO I HAVE IT? Ideal reviewers seldom exist Editors often send papers to multiple reviewers, with different areas of expertise and different perspectives Young reviewers tend to underestimate their expertise If in doubt, contact the editor and discuss your concerns

REVIEWER DUTIES Provide critical assessment of research Maintain confidentiality Avoid conflicts of interest Accept reviews only in area(s) of expertise Agree to review only if deadline can be met Report suspected plagiarism, fraud or ethical concerns to Editor Write review in a collegial, constructive manner

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN REVIEWING By agreeing to review a paper, the reviewer becomes a consultant to the journal and to adhere to the journal’s policies and guidelines for the review of manuscripts. The reviewer agrees to provide a review that meets the needs and standards of the journal within the time specified. The reviewer must be able to judge fairly and objectively the quality and significance of the work under review.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST Financial conflicts of interest: Employment, Consulting, Stock/equity Patent and license agreements Is the work too close to your own?

EVALUATE MANUSCRIPT Science Manuscript Relevant topic High readability Clearly stated objectives Appropriate methodology Good data analysis Reasonable conclusions High readability Good structure Logical flow Appropriate & current references

Reviewer Comments Comments to Author(s) Comments to the Editor Provide summary of your decision & general comments Is the paper suitable to journal? Any major problems? Accept/revise/reject? Summarize study in one paragraph Clear objectives? Methods reasonable? Data analyses & results Study limitations presented Conclusions/Implications important?

Reviewer Comments (cont.) FEEDBACK Avoid… Be negative, demeaning, or sarcastic Include personal comments Include identifying information Try to change the manuscript too much Insufficient data Inappropriate method Old database Over-interpretation of results References old Problems with writing style

Manuscript information SAMPLE REVIEWER FORM Manuscript information Scoring card Comments to editor Comments to author

ACCEPT WITH MINOR REVISIONS REVISE & DO NOT RE-REVIEW Decision of the Editor SELECT ONE ACCEPT AS IS Indicates the manuscript can be published without any corrections or revisions. Rarely, if ever, the first decision rendered. ACCEPT WITH MINOR REVISIONS Indicates the manuscript can be published with small corrections. Sometimes this is an editor-only decision; a peer reviewer would select “revise” in this case. REVISE & RE-REVIEW Indicates the manuscript needs re-writing or clarification. Indicates you would like to review the manuscript after revisions. REVISE & DO NOT RE-REVIEW Indicates the manuscript may only need minor revisions to be published or that you are unable/unwilling to review again. REJECT Indicates the manuscript will not be considered for publication. Often, editors will include peer review notes to strengthen the manuscript for- re-submission at another journal.

SUMMARY OF A GOOD REVIEWER Provides a thorough and comprehensive review Submits review on time Provides specific and well-founded comments to authors Gives constructive criticism and honest evaluation Demonstrates objectivity Provides a clear recommendations to the editor

FINALLY, HOW WAS THE REVIEW? Ask the Editor Review a manuscript with your academic advisor Join/start a journal club in the COPH, MCH, HE, or Behavioral Health student organization

HOW DOES PEER-REVIEW HELP ME? To keep up with the latest research Builds the reviewers’ professional network Increases reviewers’ visibility

IMPLICATIONS FOR WRITING MANUSCRIPTS Target Journals and readership Learn referencing styles Differentiate regular articles, Brief Reports, Commentaries, and Policy Briefs Recognize good writing, organized paper, and flow Familiar with revision process – address comments of reviewers Ethical Considerations

REFERENCES Rockwell S. Ethics of peer review: A guide for manuscript reviewers – Overview [Presentation]. Office of Research Integrity, Yale University School of Medicine. Available online at http://ori.hhs.gov/yale-university. Accessed on August 15, 2016. Khoo T. Professionally judgmental [Blog post]. The Research Whisperer. Available online at https://theresearchwhisperer.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/professionally- judgemental/. Accessed on August 15, 2016. Fox J. Advice: How to review a manuscript for a journal [Blog post]. Available online at https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/advice-how-to-review-a- manuscript-for-a-journal/. Accessed on August 15, 2016. Khoo T. Build your journal karma [Blog post]. Available online at https://theresearchwhisperer.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/journal-karma/. Accessed on August 15, 2016. Lovejoy TI, Revenson TA, France CR. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-reviewed journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2011;42:1-13

Then it is time to review for the JBHS&R! Any Questions? Then it is time to review for the JBHS&R!