1. REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS TIPS FOR REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS Bruce Lubotsky Levin, DrPH, MPH Associate Professor & Head Dept. of Community & Family Health University of South Florida

2. AUTHOR PERSPECTIVE OF PEER REVIEW PROCESS

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

4. PEER REVIEW PROCESS Editorial Screening … Does the topic fit the scope & aim of journal? Some papers are rejected here, called “desk rejection”… MANUSCRIPT SUBMITTED 2 - 4 experts reviewer paper & provide feedback for author(s) and Editor… PEER REVIEW Editor evaluates manuscript and the peer reviews… EDITORIAL REVIEW Accept Accepted with contingencies Revise Reject EDITORIAL DECISION Author(s) may revise & re- submit if asked by the Editor Final copyediting… TO PUBLISH: YES OR NO?

5. WHY PEER REVIEW?  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

6. WHO SHOULD PEER REVIEW?

7. WHY SHOULD YOU REVIEW MANUSCRIPTS?  Read latest research in public health  Read examples of good & horrible papers!  Improves your own manuscript writing!  Add manuscript reviewing to C.V.!

8. TYPES OF PAPERS  Varies by Journal & Academic Discipline  Original Research  Brief Report/Special Report  Literature Review/Meta-analysis  Policy Perspective  Letter to the Editor

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

10. 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

12. 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

13. EVALUATE MANUSCRIPT ScienceManuscript  Relevant topic  Clearly stated objectives  Appropriate methodology  Good data analysis  Reasonable conclusions  High readability  Good structure  Logical flow  Appropriate & current references

14. Comments to the EditorComments to Author(s)  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

15.  Insufficient data  Inappropriate method  Old database  Over-interpretation of results  References old  Problems with writing style  Be negative, demeaning, or sarcastic  Include personal comments  Include identifying information  Try to change the manuscript too much Reviewer Comments (con’t.)

16. 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 needs re-writing or clarification. 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.

17. Sample Reviewer Form Manuscript information Scoring card Comments to author Comments to Editor

18. Summary of Good Review Provides thorough review Submits review on time Familiar with literature in field Provides specific & helpful comments Gives constructive criticism & objective review Provides a clear recommendation to the editor

19. 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

20. REFERENCES Cham, J. The academic review process [Image]. PhD Comics. Available online at: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1760. Accessed on July 27, 2015. http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1760 Harris, S. Then a miracle occurs [Image]. S. Harris Cartoon Gallery. Available online at: http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php. Accessed on July 24, 2015.http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php Provenzale JM, Stanley RJ. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2005; 185(4): 848-854. Spigt M, Arts ICW. How to review a manuscript. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2010; 63(12): 1385-1390.

21. REFERENCES (con’t.) The peer review process [Image]. Available online at: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16. Accessed on July 27, 2015. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16 The peer review process final round [Image]. European Association of Science Editors. Available online at: https://journalofhumannutritionanddieteticseditor.files.wordpress.c om/2013/03/peer-review_process1.jpg. Accessed on July 27, 2015. https://journalofhumannutritionanddieteticseditor.files.wordpress.c om/2013/03/peer-review_process1.jpg Yang, J. Peer review [Image]. Available online at: https://handygrammar.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/peerreview.jp g. Accessed on July 21, 2015. https://handygrammar.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/peerreview.jp g