A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T Y Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management Scientific Publishing, Flakkebjerg, September 1 st, 12:30-15:30 Reviewing scientific papers Bo Melander Department of Integrated Pest Management, Research Centre Flakkebjerg

My background 20 years in agricultural research Area of expertise  Physical and cultural weed control methods  Weed ecology Subject editor for Weed Research, 5 th year  5-7 manuscripts per year  First response: 20% accepted, 60% reject & resubmission (<50% are resubmitted), 20% rejected  Accept  Minor revision  Reject & resubmit  Reject

A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T Y Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management When receiving a manuscript Forwarded by the editor in chief Is the subject within the scope of the journal? Weed harrowing but no plants A first glance before selecting reviewers Selection of reviewers, 1-3 but mostly 2  Expertise  Availability, can be a big problem!  No clash of interests  Same nationality?  Bad ’ chemistry ’

A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T Y Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management Reviewing process Reporting within a month – voluntarily work Large variation in the quality of reviewing Discrepancy between the reports, one recommends acceptance the other rejection Subject editor makes the final decision

A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T Y Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management What are we looking for? Is the paper well prepared?  Well organised?  English readable ? Many are offering writing assistance at a reasonable price  Does it follow the house style of the journal?  Character, type size and spacing  Abbreviations, symbols and nomenclature  Scientific names  Tables and Figures  Reference citations & reference list Take a look in author guidelines and in papers already published Never forward a paper edited according to the house style of another journal!!

A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T Y Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management What are we looking for? The summary  Background  Objective  Materials & methods  Main results  Implications for science & practise A lot in 200 words!

A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T Y Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management What are we looking for? The Introduction  Background  Is the problem clearly and consisely explained with references to the most recent and relevant litterature?  The perennial weed species Elymus repens has increased in organic farming bla bla bla  Rationale  What is the idea behind the research undertaken?  Where is the lack in knowledge - novelty?  What are the hypotheses?  What are the likely benefits?  Traditional stubble cultivation to control E. repens conflicts with nutrient handling and E. repens should be controlled over a short period bla bla bla. There is a need to develop a strategy that bla bla bla

A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T Y Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management What are we looking for? The Introduction  Objective  Precise, unambiguous and consise  To investigate the effect of 3 new strategies against E. repens that meets the rquirements bla bla bla

A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T Y Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management What are we looking for? Materials & Methods  Are the experiments clearly explained?  Can it be repeated by others?  Is the work scientifically sound  Is the statistics correct?

A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T Y Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management What are we looking for? Materials & Methods  Is the work scientifically sound? Typical mistakes  Not enough replicates  Experiments not repeated in time and space  Lack of information about the pests to be controlled (example: steaming in forestry)  Lack of information about the treatments applied, (date, energy applied, driving speed etc.)  Strange changes of the experimental environment (example: E. repens control)  No lessons learned from similar studies, significant errors could have been avoidedm (example: flame weeding)

A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T Y Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management What are we looking for? Materials & Methods  Is the statistics correct?? Typical mistakes  Inadequately explained number of replicates transformation distribution of data unbalanced or balanced data  Analyses of variances vs. Regression analyses Quantitative vs. qualitative variables (example: steaming in forestry)  Split-plot and split-split-plot designs Tests of main plots and sub-plots and sub-sub-plots  Lack of co-variance analyses

A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T Y Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management What are we looking for? Results  Clear and stringent presentation of results  Good balance between figures and tables  Are the main findings highlighted?  Are the highlighted results justified by the data?

A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T Y Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management What are we looking for? Discussion  Relations to other studies  Critical reflection on the results  Where are the findings leading?  Further research needed?

A A R H U S U N I V E R S I T Y Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF), Department of Integrated Pest Management Major reasons for rejection  Lack of novelty  Lack of repetition in time and/or space  Wrongly conducted treatments  Lack of significant information – the results are not reproducible  Incorrect statistics, can normally be solved  Extremely poor manuscript: poor English, poor structure, lack of clarity