Revising and reviewing papers

Transcription

1 Revising and reviewing papers Ma/hew England Climate Change Research Centre and CoE in Climate System Science University of New South Wales Sydney NSW Australia

2

3 Outline.. WriFng / submihng a paper Revising a paper (responding to reviews) Reviewing a paper Q&A

4 WriFng up a paper Slide from Pete Stru/on

5 Important things to get right Title and abstract IntroducFon set out scope clearly Figures Quality images InformaFve figure legends References because editors look there for reviewers when the ones you suggest have declined Adapted from Pete Stru/on

6 Choice of journal Think carefully about where to publish Topic area? Length of your manuscript? Past papers: where have they appeared? Target audience?? May need to trade off Fmeliness vs impact It s all about citafons Adapted from Pete Stru/on

7 For some journals, cover le/ers are important Slide from Michael White, Nature"

8 What should the cover le/er do? Highlight the main points of the manuscript What is new and/or innovafve? Perhaps including what is hot in this field Why is the ms appropriate to the journal Perhaps past history of similar papers Suggested reviewers Suggested reviewers to avoid But go easy Slide from Pete Stru/on

9 What makes this a great paper?

10 Discovery

11 Major revision to our understanding

12 ResoluFon of a controversy

13 Timely immediate relevance

14 Unsurprising but important quanfficafons

15 Titles are important Influence of the Pacific Decadel OscillaFon on phytoplankton phenology and community structure in the western North Pacific based on satellite observafon and the ConFnuous Plankton Recorder survey for versus Influence of the Pacific Decadal OscillaFon on phytoplankton phenology and community structure in the western North Pacific versus Pacific Decadal OscillaFon influence on western North Pacific phytoplankton Adapted from Pete Stru/on

16 What makes a good Ftle? Accurate InteresFng Not too specific (avoid technical terms) Not too regional Maybe catchy without being too cute From Pete Stru/on

17 GeHng back the reviews How to respond How to work with your co- authors How to get the desired outcome?

18 Editors decisions: Accept as is Never happens Minor revision Might not go back to reviewers, response document is crucial Major revision aka reject and encourage resubmit: Authors get 3-6 months, response document is crucial Reject (~30% of papers for GRL, 93% for Nature) Adapted from Pete Stru/on

19 Reviewer comments The good.. I find this a very important and enlightening paper dealing with... It is of fundamental interna=onal concern The manuscript is very well wri/en and revealing... My recommenda=on is to accept it for publica=on, pending some minor clarifica=ons. The bad.. I do not consider the authors present robust evidence and analyses to support their conclusions. In addi=on, I found several major flaws. For both these reasons, I think this paper should be rejected for publica=on. I also note that there are 10 authors listed for this paper and find it surprising that none have picked up on what, to me, are fairly obvious errors and inconsistencies. Adapted from Pete Stru/on

20 It s ok to challenge the editor s decision Consult with co- authors Were the reviewers off- base? Was the decision inconsistent with the reviews? Be civil Write a carefully drajed le/er if need be addressing the sfcking points Adapted from Pete Stru/on

21 WriFng your response to reviewers

22 10 Tips for responding to reviewer comments

23 10 Tips for responding to reviewer comments. but don t be too sycophanfc.

24 10 Tips for responding to reviewer comments

25 10 Tips for responding to reviewer comments

26 The response to reviewers document Make it as easy as possible for the editor We want happy editors May mean that manuscript doesn t go back out for review May speed the process Tread a fine line with the reviewers: Pick your ba/les and don t be too sycophanfc From Pete Stru/on

27 The three golden rules of structuring your response le/er RULE ONE: ANSWER COMPLETELY RULE TWO: ANSWER POLITELY, even if the reviewer is rude RULE THREE: ANSWER WITH EVIDENCE

28 The response to reviewers document: Don t just say you ve fixed it, show how From Pete Stru/on

29 Hopefully the end result is publicafon. Then what..?

30 Maximising the impact of your papers out an alert / reprint to key colleagues and people working in the field Media: Our communicafons people (Alvin and co) are always looking for news items: Excellent resource to publicise your work If in the media: make sure you re able to succinctly explain the work: 3 main points Present your work at meefngs

31 Reviewing a paper Normally starts up post- PhD For every paper you submit, 3 reviews are needed. Make sure the topic matches your experfse? Key benchmarks: Is the methodology sound? Are the advances significant?

32

33 Tips for reviewers From Barton, 2010"

34 How to review a paper Skim to see if it is publishable (should it be rejected without full review?) Read it once Read it again, drajing your review Read it again, wrifng up your review If the journal uses a rafng (numerical or alphabefcal) system, make sure your review is consistent with your ranking Don t feel that it is necessary to be anonymous Adapted from Pete Stru/on

35 Further remarks re reviewing Early career scienfsts ojen make the best reviewers: They care Focussed on science on a day to day basis They re usually extremely well- versed in the literature of their field The best reviews provide a clear recommendafon to the editor From Pete Stru/on

36 Q & A Thank you! Further details or ppt of this talk: M.England@unsw.edu.au

37 Editorial decisions fall into 3 main categories