Peer-review: Being a Construc;ve Cri;c & Responding to a Cri;que. Jennifer H. Jonason, Ph.D. Art of Science June 20, 2016

Transcription

1 Peer-review: Being a Construc;ve Cri;c & Responding to a Cri;que Jennifer H. Jonason, Ph.D. Art of Science June 20, 2016

2 Peer Review of Scien;fic Journal Ar;cles Goal: To assess the quality of the ar;cle submiied for publica;on in a

3 Peer Review of Scien;fic Journal Ar;cles Goal: To assess the quality of the ar;cle submiied for publica;on in a The process: 1) Scien;sts prepare a manuscript and submit it to a Submission includes a cover le:er addressed to the journal editor(s). Authors may suggest peers who they feel are competent to review their work. They may also request that certain peers not review their work. (1)

4 Peer Review of Scien;fic Journal Ar;cles Goal: To assess the quality of a manuscript submiied for publica;on in a The process: 1) ScienGsts prepare a manuscript and submit it to a 2) Journal editor sends the manuscript out for peer review. Editor chooses 2-3 reviewers based on their areas of expergse. Editor sends an invitagon to each reviewer asking for their assistance. Review may be open or blinded. (1) (2)

5 Considera;ons When Asked to Review Exper0se: Are you truly qualified to review the content of the manuscript? Timeliness: Do you currently have enough Gme to devote to reviewing the manuscript? Most journals have a 2 week deadline. Conflict of Interest: Can you give a completely unbiased review of the manuscript? Most journals will ask you to officially declare that you have no conflicts of interest upon review submission. If you decline the invitagon to review, it is courteous to provide the editor with names of other possible reviewers.

6 Peer Review of Scien;fic Journal Ar;cles Goal: To assess the quality of a manuscript submiied for publica;on in a The process: 1) ScienGsts prepare a manuscript and submit it to a 2) Journal editor sends the manuscript out for peer review. 3) Peer reviewers read the manuscript and provide detailed feedback to the editor. (1) (2) (3)

7 Wri;ng a Review - Strategy 1) First read-through: Determine the quality of the wri:en document. IdenGfy subject areas in which literature searches may be required for further review. Make note of any obvious concerns. IdenGfy the problem addressed and the approaches used.

8 Wri;ng a Review - Strategy 1) First read-through: Determine the quality of the wri:en document. IdenGfy subject areas in which literature searches may be required for further review. Make note of any obvious concerns. IdenGfy the problem addressed and the approaches used. 2) Second (& third, etc.) read-through: Read each secgon of the manuscript in detail and note strengths/weaknesses. Re-read abstract and Gtle last to confirm they adequately summarize the data.

9 Points to Consider Introduc;on & Discussion What is the specific ques;on addressed by the research? Is the research appropriate for this journal? Is the research novel and interes;ng? This is a review point emphasized by some journals, but not all. Is the current state of knowledge in the field accurately reported by the manuscript? Are there missing references that should be included? Do the authors discuss how their research relates to the current literature and advances knowledge in their scien;fic field? OR do they simply restate the Results in their Discussion? Are the authors conclusions appropriate given the data presented?

10 Points to Consider Methods & Results Was the experimental design appropriate for the ques;on asked? Are addi;onal experiments needed to support the conclusions of the manuscript? It is okay to suggest that addigonal experiments be performed, but be realisgc! Take into account the amount of Gme the authors will have for resubmission. Were appropriate controls employed for all experiments? Were the experiments performed in accordance with relevant ethical standards? Were appropriate sta;s;cal analyses performed? Are all figures/tables meaningful to the manuscript and presented in an appropriate manner? Would some data be be:er presented as Supplemental Material?

11 Addi;onal Points to Consider Take the review seriously; you are now part of the authoring process. Help the authors to make the manuscript the best it can be. View the reviewing experience as a learning opportunity. Don t be in;midated by the authors. Review the work, not the people. Be direct, but respec]ul, when wri;ng your comments. Respect confiden;ality. Do not discuss the manuscript with others and do not use informagon from the manuscript prior to its publicagon. You cannot be an expert in all aspects of a study. Let the editor know if there are pargcular elements of the experimental design that you cannot crigcally evaluate.

12 Wri;ng a Review - Strategy 1) First read-through: Determine the quality of the wri:en document. IdenGfy subject areas in which literature searches may be required for further review. Make note of any obvious concerns. IdenGfy the problem addressed and the approaches used. 2) Second (& third, etc.) read-through: Read each secgon of the manuscript in detail and note strengths/weaknesses. Re-read abstract and Gtle last to confirm they adequately summarize the data. 3) Write the review: Summarize the problem addressed, methods used, and results obtained. If a fatal flaw is found or there is a major concern, state this in the beginning of the review. List, point-by-point, all other concerns (usually in the order in which they appear in the manuscript).

13 WriIen Comments to the Authors and Editor First paragraph: summary of manuscript (2-3 sentences), statement of major concern(s), comment on wrigng and grammar. Examples

14 Peer Review of Scien;fic Journal Ar;cles Goal: To assess the quality of a manuscript submiied for publica;on in a The process: 1) ScienGsts prepare a manuscript and submit it to a 2) Journal editor sends the manuscript out for peer review. 3) Peer reviewers read the manuscript and provide detailed feedback to the editor. 4) Editor reviews reviewer comments and decides the fate of the manuscript. Accept Minor Revision Major Revision Reject (1) (2) (4) (3)

15 Peer Review of Scien;fic Journal Ar;cles Goal: To assess the quality of a manuscript submiied for publica;on in a The process: 1) ScienGsts prepare a manuscript and submit it to a 2) Journal editor sends the manuscript out for peer review. 3) Peer reviewers read the manuscript and provide detailed feedback to the editor. 4) Editor reviews reviewer comments and decides the fate of the manuscript. 5) Authors decide to revise and resubmit their manuscript with a rebuial to the reviewers comments. (1) (2) (4) (3)

16 The RebuIal (Response to Reviewers Comments) Address every point brought up by the reviewers. If you don t, they will likely bring it up again following resubmission. If you cannot possibly do an experiment they have suggested, or if their experiment is unreasonable, explain to them why this is the case. When you were wrong or made a mistake they idengfied, admit it, thank them for finding it, and tell them how you fixed it. Be direct, but respec]ul. If a reviewer is wrong about something, explain to them politely why they are wrong. Be gracious, but not too gracious. Thanking the reviewer for an insighbul comment or suggesgon is more meaningful if you restrict it to those points you are genuinely grateful for. Feel free to include addi;onal data within the rebuial if it does not make sense to add it to the manuscript.

17 Reviewer Perspec;ve of the RebuIal Posi;ve example: all three reviewers had the same major concern and suggested experiments to address this concern (hence, major revision ). Upon resubmission, the authors had addressed this concern and their manuscript was accepted. Result: reviewer pargcipagon resulted in a stronger publicagon. Example..

18 Peer Review of Scien;fic Journal Ar;cles Goal: To assess the quality of a manuscript submiied for publica;on in a The process: 1) ScienGsts prepare a manuscript and submit it to a 2) Journal editor sends the manuscript out for peer review. 3) Peer reviewers read the manuscript and provide detailed feedback to the editor. 4) Editor reviews reviewer comments and decides the fate of the manuscript. 5) Authors decide to revise and resubmit their manuscript with a rebu:al to the reviewers comments. 6) Peer reviewers read the rebuial / revision and decide to accept the manuscript or send it back for further revision. (1) (2) (4) (3)

19 Peer Review of Scien;fic Journal Ar;cles Goal: To assess the quality of a manuscript submiied for publica;on in a The process: 1) ScienGsts prepare a manuscript and submit it to a 2) Journal editor sends the manuscript out for peer review. 3) Peer reviewers read the manuscript and provide detailed feedback to the editor. 4) Editor reviews reviewer comments and decides the fate of the manuscript. 5) Authors decide to revise and resubmit their manuscript with a rebu:al to the reviewers comments. 6) Peer reviewers read the rebu:al / revision and decide to accept the manuscript or send it back for further revision. 7) Editor ul;mately accepts or rejects the manuscript. (1) (2) (4) (3)

20 How to Prac;ce Peer Review Join journal clubs. Play an acgve role in wrigng the rebu:al to your manuscripts. Ask for opportuniges to begin reviewing manuscripts.