Reviewing Manuscripts and Proposals: Reviewer and Editor Perspectives Larry Miller and Jim Kuwabara, NRP, WR An alternate title: How reviewing helps us to write, and vice versa. May 17, 2007 – USGS, Menlo Park

Request from Journal or Agency to review- Usually includes author(s), title, and possibly an abstract May provide a link to the manuscript or proposal Should give a clear statement of the due date Often has a definition of the journals conflict of interest policy Should leave you the option to decline gracefully You should respond promptly

Things to think about immediately- Am I qualified to provide the review? Can I do it in the time provided? Is there a conflict of interest? Are there other qualified reviewers? Whats in it for me? Next- read the thing OK- lets say you accept… Read the guidelines for reviewers provided by the journal. For example,

Pitfalls to watch for- Is the paper (proposal) original? Is the writing coherent? Reviews take longer than youd guess. It may help to read several other papers, but the work should stand on its own Its not your job to re-write the paper

First impressions- Is this journal best suited to publish the work? Is the quality of the science high? Are the proper scientific methods used? Are the data presented in the best possible way? Are there any errors in the data or in their interpretation? Does the manuscript tell a story? Is it interesting? Next, prepare a thoughtful review Its reasonable to decide by this time if you plan to recommend rejection or acceptance

Think about helpful reviews of your work- Prioritize problems Can they be resolved by re-writing? If no, can you suggest another path to publication? If yes, then you should make suggestions This will mean more work for you A good review is a creative document that advances science. In addition to identifying shortcomings, a good review provides guidance to the author for improving the work and presentation. Comments in a good review are made in a helpful manner, even if the paper is not destined for publication; harshly-worded comments reduce the effectiveness of a review and diminish the stature of the journal.

Preparing a review as 2 letters- 1- General comments to the editor: Introductory paragraph with title, reference number and authors, plus a quick summary of the report and its significance. Your recommendation to reject or accept, or accept with major modification Basis for this recommendation 2- Specific comments to the author: Introductory statement (optional) Specific comments- must be addressed

Specific comments to authors (cont)- Go through the manuscript by section Refer to specific page/line Yes, you may pick nits. Will it help? Common problems include: Overreaching the data Improper use of statistics Random significant figures My pet peeve- prepositional phrases

Considerations by section- Does the Abstract tell a complete story? Does the Introduction present the problem and cite relevant references? Are the Methods appropriate and well documented? Are the Results organized logically? Does the Discussion develop the ideas? Figures and Tables should tell the story Captions, titles, and labels must be descriptive Note reference format inconsistencies or any omissions

Finished? Review your review Anonymity Are you willing to see it again? For proposals, scrutinize the budget Review your comments to editor Submit and secure (or destroy) the original Let the editor know ASAP if you cant meet your obligation in time.

The Review Process from an Editors Perspective (A view inside the black boxes) Authors (MS Prep) AE Recommendation To Editor Reviewer Assignment Editorial Assignments Reviews Compiled AE Rejection Decision Letter Publication Process MS Submittal MS Acceptance Conditional Acceptance or Rejection

Qualification: This is an Editors Perspective (Many others on campus serve on Editorial Boards) Authors (MS Prep) AE Recommendation Reviewer Assignment Editorial Assignments Reviews Compiled AE Rejection Decision Letter Publication Process MS Submittal MS Acceptance Conditional Acceptance or Rejection

Scientists on campus who currently serve on Editorial Boards Please let me know about any omissions (x4485 or a revised listing will be provided in an upcoming NRP Branch Bulletin

The Review Process from an Editors Perspective 1.Preparation for submission – What role can Editors play at this stage? 2.What happens after the manuscript is submitted? 3. The Editorial Office receives the reviews – What then? 4. Suggestions of how to respond to a decision letter?

Editors can play a role in manuscript preparation 1.After carefully reviewing the instructions to authors for the journal, Contact the Editor or Associate Editor if in doubt about whether the manuscript is appropriate for the journal (Could save you a couple months of lag time and reformatting). 2.Multitude of sponsoring organizations – For example, AGU Journals Earth Interactions Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems Geophysical Research Letters Global Biogeochemical Cycles International Journal of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres) Journal of Geophysical Research (Biogeosciences) Journal of Geophysical Research (Earth Surface) Journal of Geophysical Research (Oceans) Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets) Journal of Geophysical Research (Solid Earth) Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics Paleoceanography Radio Science Reviews of Geophysics Space Weather Tectonics Water Resources Research – Personal point of view

Manuscript preparation (continued) 3. Appropriately develop the format of the paper a. Articles - Longer, fully developed analysis and discussion of research topic. Can the discussion be condensed into a note format? (cost and editorial time) b. Companion articles – Typically reviewed to stand alone although maybe assigned to the same reviewers. c. Technical notes – Short (<4 printed pages), description of a new method or significant observations that does not warrant rapid review. Review process is still typically faster than an article. d. Rapid communications – Concise description of new and important findings that warrant accelerated review and publication (justification required). e. Opinion articles and comments

Manuscript preparation (continued) 4. Important points of the submission letter a.How does this manuscript fit into the objectives of the manuscript and how does it extend our knowledge base (bullet the benefit). For example, if there has been a recent publication by the submitting authors on a similar topic, the advancement beyond that prior publication must be clear, or weeks can be lost in correspondence before the review process even begins. b. Based on you knowledge of the research interests of the Associate Editors (AE), you can suggest that a particular AE might be most appropriate to administer the review process (scheduling commitments can trump that request). c. If given the option, provide recommendations for reviewers and briefly explain why they are particularly qualified d. Make requests for researchers you do not wish to serve as reviewers (conflict of research interest)

The Review Process from an Editors Perspective 1.Preparation for submission – What role can Editors play at this stage? 2.What happens after the manuscript is submitted? 3. The Editorial Office receives the reviews – What then? 4. Suggestions of how to respond to a decision letter?

What happens after the manuscript is submitted? (A view into the Black Box) 1.Black box circuits vary between journals. This is how it generally works. 2.Editor assigns AE to coordinate review process (In multi-disciplinary work, it may help to suggest an AE.) 3. AE reviews manuscript and: a. Recommends rejection outright - Is it reasonable to commit the human and material resources for the review process? b. Reviewers selected (Hands off/ Hands on methods) 4. Authors can check on review status (mindful of prudent time scales)

This may be a disappointment, but your manuscripts are NOT always assigned to an AE who has a corresponding research focus 1.Theres only so much subject coverage that a journals editorial board can provide. 2. Be sure to be clear about the advancements made, suggested AE, and suggested reviewers.

A view into the Black Box (continued) What is the Editor or AE trying to do? 1. By any measure (e.g.,Impact factor) to maintain or improve the quality of the journal as representative of the sponsoring organization (coverage of new research directions) 2. Screen and identify clear advancements in the field 3. Try to efficiently use human and material resources in the review process. 4. Provide objective, constructive advice to the authors regarding their work (synthesis of evaluations), as clearly and specifically as possible. 5. Complete the service of items 1-3 in a timely fashion. NOTE: In interactions with the Editors and AEs, it may be prudent to recognize that they typically serve the journals and sponsoring organizations without pay.

The Review Process from an Editors Perspective 1.Preparation for submission – What role can Editors play at this stage? 2.What happens after the manuscript is submitted? 3. The Editorial Office receives the reviews – What then? 4. Suggestions of how to respond to a decision letter?

The Editorial Office receives the reviews – What then? A.The AE synthesizes the information in terms of consistencies and inconsistencies between reviews. B. Based on the AE appraisal, the reviewers comments are prioritized and a recommendation to the Editor is prepared C.The AE might also recommend to the Editor that even after all comments are incorporated into the manuscript, that the authors might be better served by submitting the revised manuscript to another journal. D. The Editor sends out a decision letter to the authors based on the AE recommendation (sometimes discussions with the AE), reviewer comments and his own evaluation.

The Review Process from an Editors Perspective 1.Preparation for submission – What role can Editors play at this stage? 2.What happens after the manuscript is submitted? 3. The Editorial Office receives the reviews – What then? 4. Suggestions of how to respond to a decision letter?

Authors receive the decision letter. What then? A. Acceptance or conditional acceptance: Revise manuscript as needed 1. When resubmitting the revisions, be sure to clearly state how an where in the revised manuscript each comment has been incorporated into the revision. Tabulated responses (or at least indexed, tracked changes) are useful. Response times are much longer if the AE or reviewer has to search for the revisions. 2. If a comment is rejected, be clear (with references) why, after careful deliberation, the comment was not incorporated.

Authors receive the decision letter (continued) B. Rejection: 1. Look over the decision letter and reviewer comments carefully. How strong is the rejection? Is there potential for a positive outcome to a resubmittal (if in doubt, correspond tactfully with the Editor or AE)? Varies with journal (WRR no longer has a reject with encouragement to resubmit). 2. Use the decision letter and comments to improve the manuscript and prepare revisions for resubmittal or submission to another journal.

Ideally the review process is constructive with Editorial- board members serving primarily as facilitators rather than gatekeepers.