Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 1 … 4 The review process  Overview  The author’s role  The referee’s role  The editor’s role

Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 2 Overview on the (peer) review process Objective: Provide quality insurance of published academic work  Reliable and credible body of research  Protection of academic reader who is not a narrow expert in the field Means: Review by independent experts  Almost always “single blind” (anonymity of referees), often double blind (+ anonym. authors)  Decision on publication by editor Critique: process very slow and subject to failure  Takes often more than a year from submission to publication and rarely less than 6 months  Not designed to detect fraud Review process overview Author’s role Referee’s role Editor’s role

Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 3 Further critique and counter-arguments  Editors and referees could function as “gatekeepers” (process susceptible for jealousy and “turf protection”)  Process may suppress dissent against mainstream theories (editors pick established researchers as referees  theory: the “better” the journal the more “mainstream”)  Referees tend to disagree with conclusions that conflict with their own views Counter-arguments:  A large number of journals make it difficult to “control” scientific information by an elite  Referees comment independently from each other Review process overview Author’s role Referee’s role Editor’s role

Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 4 Critical views Drummond Rennie (Deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association and organizer of a regular congress on peer review and publication): “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self- serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print” Ron Mittelhammer: “Never believe what is written black on white” Review process overview Author’s role Referee’s role Editor’s role

Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 5 The (peer) review process Author(s) Referees (2 or 3) Editor (associate editors) (1) Submit manuscript (2a) Desk-Rejection if quality or fit obviously poor (2b) Recruit referees (3) Provide reports and recommendation (4) Write decision letter (acceptance, revision, rejection) Review process overview Author’s role Referee’s role Editor’s role

Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 6 The author’s role  Before submission, check if own paper fits to scope of journal by visiting the journal’s website  Format paper according to the journal’s instructions to authors. Watch for  length limitations (including tables and figures)  format of references, headings,…. (also to avoid revealing a history of prior submission)  Author should respond to each editor and referee comment “bullet by bullet”  Does not necessarily mean all suggestions are implemented, but responses must be complete  Identify clearly changes made in response to editor’s and referees comments Review process overview Author’s role Referee’s role Editor’s role

Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 7 The author’s role  Authors should communicate with editor if uncertainties on priorities of revision exist (decision letter not clear in resolving potential conflicts between referees’ comments)  Authors may ask editor to mediate communication with referees in case of problems with interpretation  Never take review personal…remember the critique of process…  Use neutral tone when responding (even if comments were nasty), but be clear on your stance  Invitation for resubmission is a success!  When you get a rejection, work on the relevant comments and submit to next journal (within a month) Review process overview Author’s role Referee’s role Editor’s role

Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 8 The referee’s role  Referees should only agree to do the review if they expect to be able to do it in time  do not unnecessarily prolong an already long process  Structure the review in “general comments” and “specific comments”  General issues to be addressed in a review  Does the manuscript fit to the journal?  Identify contribution of the manuscript to the literature (theory, methodology, application)  Do authors clearly identify the objective and the contribution to the literature?  Do they use the appropriate state-of-the-art methodology to achieve the objective? Review process overview Author’s role Referee’s role Editor’s role

Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 9 The referee’s role  General issues to be addressed…continued  Is there a theory underlying the analysis and is it clearly identified by the authors?  Is the theory appropriate?  Do the data used contain the information needed?  Is the structure of presentation logical and appropriate?  How is the length of the manuscript relative to contribution  Is style and spelling a general problem (NO EDITING!)?  Specific comments  Refer to specific sections, paragraphs, sentences, words. Go through the manuscript sequentially  Identify all logical errors (insufficient clarity) in arguments and derivations  Are all symbols and acronyms explained and consistently used Review process overview Author’s role Referee’s role Editor’s role

Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 10 The referee’s role  Specific comments…continued  Is the information provided in tables and graphs useful and necessary?  Are the tables and graphs self explanatory (are all contents exactly described in headings and notes)?  Are the conclusions drawn based on the analysis and information provided? (could be a general comment if substance of conclusions are questioned)  General rule: What you don’t understand is likely not understood by majority of readers. Don’t be afraid to say something wrong – the authors can react ……  Use a neutral tone and don’t belittle authors or their research, but clearly express your view Review process overview Author’s role Referee’s role Editor’s role

Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 11 The referee’s role  Typically, one of the following four recommendations have to be given TO EDITOR:  Accept  Accept with minor revision (sometimes only called “minor revision”)  Reject in its current form, but encourage resubmission after major revision (sometimes called “major revision”)  Outright reject  Only recommend “major revision” if you expect that problems can be solved without writing new paper  However, sometimes one does not know because information is not sufficient  one can express in the letter to the editor to be “in between two choices”  Send extra letter with general comments and recommendation to editor (rec. do not go to author) Review process overview Author’s role Referee’s role Editor’s role

Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 12 The editor’s role  Makes decision on acceptance, rejection and priorities of revision  Mediates between authors and referees  Is ultimately responsible to decide if the contribution of the manuscript is sufficient for the journal’s ambition  might imply rejection even if all referees recommend revision  Considerable differences exist between editors regarding how actively engaged they are in the review process. Extremes:  Just send along the referee’s comments and ask authors to react  Clearly set priorities for revision and resolve impossibilities and add own comments Review process overview Author’s role Referee’s role Editor’s role