Brief description of the article publication

1. The Publishing
Process, How to
Deal with
Journal/Editor?
Ashok Pandey
NHRC
The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 17/28/17

2. Submitting your paper
Follow journal instructions
• Formatting
- Title, abstract, text, tables, figures
- Use software for references
• Word limits
• Author names and affiliations correct
 Corresponding author
• Ask if you need help or clarification
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 2

3. The review process - Who
is involved in any journal
Editor-in-chief (EiC)
- Final decisions
Associate editors (larger journals)
- Find reviewers
- Manage the review process
- Make initial recommendation to EiC
Editorial review board (larger journals)
Peer reviewers
- Selected for their expertise
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 3

4. The review process
Who is likely to review or manage your paper?
• Journal board members (Associate Editors and
Editorial Review boards) in your subject area
• Other experts in your subject area
• Authors of similar studies or related publications
• Authors that you have cited in your paper
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 4

5. The Review Process
Preferred reviewers
• If the journal gives you the option to suggest preferred reviewers, provide
3-4 names
• Mention in cover letter, or maybe a separate field if electronic submission
• Make sure names and contact information correct
• Don’t suggest people from your institution or those with obvious conflicts
• Ok to suggest journal board members
• Be aware that preferred reviewers are not always “easy” reviewers!
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 5

6. The Review Process
Non-preferred reviewers
 May or may not be indicated as an option
• Rarely a good idea, but can be appropriate on
occasion
- Clear conflict (adversarial)
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 6

7. Steps in the review
process
1. Triage
2. External peer review
3. Editor’s decision
4. Revisions
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 7

8. Triage
Initial screen by selective journals
• Avoid overloading reviewers with papers that are
obviously
inappropriate for the journal
• At minimum, read abstract & introduction- but may
only skim (or even skip) the rest
What this means to you
• If you do not sell your paper to the editor(s) by the
end of the introduction, it is likely to be rejected
• If your paper is very badly written, it is likely to be
rejected without reviewing by selective journals
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 8

9. Triage
Triage: Key considerations
• Is the topic appropriate for the journal?
- Are papers from the journal cited?
• Is the paper likely to advance knowledge?
- Novel concept or approach
- Better study design or analysis
• Is the paper coherent and clear?
• Did the author follow journal instructions?
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 9

10. Triage
Rejection without review
• Did your abstract & introduction fail to sell the paper?
• Was your paper very difficult to understand?
• Was there a “fatal mistake”?
Advantage: Speeds up the review process
- Rejection in 1 - 2 weeks versus 1 - 2 months
- Disadvantage: Usually do not receive any feedback
Requests for reconsideration
- May be appropriate, but only on rare occasions
- Be respectful and polite!
- Make a strong case for your paper to EIC
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 10

11. Example
Subject: MS: 2014_I-SRR_11333 : Invitation to Review Manuscript for International
STD Research & Reviews
Dear Colleague,
I am approaching you with the peer-review request of the below mentioned
manuscript submitted in International STD Research & Reviews
Title: HIV KNOWLEDGE AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOURS
AMONG OUT-OF-SCHOOL ADOLESCENTS IN KUMBA, SOUTHWEST REGION OF
CAMEROON
I would be grateful if you would kindly find some time to review the above
mentioned manuscript and send your valuable comments within 21 calendar
days (5 June’2014).
Abstract of the manuscript is available in this link
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ubxp4oe9vtl5o1x/Abstract%202014_I-
SRR_11333.docx). After clicking in this link you will be redirected to the
attachment webpage. Then download the file. If you require the file as E-
mail attachment kindly let us know.
Kindly click on this link if you decline to our invitation: Declined to
peer review 7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 11

12. Peer Review
• Usually 2 - 3 reviewers
• Usually given 2 - 3 weeks to submit review
• May be given detailed instructions about what to
evaluate, but not always
• May provide separate comments to the editor
- Should be consistent with their comments to you,
but are not always so
• Quality of reviews varies substantially
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 12

13. Peer Review – What does
this mean for you?
• Similar to triage, but based on a more
detailed review
You must convince reviewers that your paper is
worth your effort
If a reviewer can’t understand what you did, they
will question your research
• Be clear and concise and pay attention to
details
If a reviewer can’t understand what you are
saying, they will be more likely to question
your work
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 13

14. Peer Review Outcomes
Editor’s decision
 Associate Editor makes recommendation
 ED makes final decision
Possible outcomes
Rejection
 Request Revisions
- Some have “Accept with revisions”
- Never assume that acceptance is guaranteed
- Different levels of revisions, e.g., major or minor
Acceptance
- Very rare for first draft
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 14

15. What to do if your paper is
rejected?
 Revise the paper in response to reviewer
 Comments before submitting elsewhere!
- The paper will be better because of it
- You might also end up with the same reviewer
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 15

16. Reviewers are humans
with a sense of comedy!!
• The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly
sucked the will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style.
• Done! Difficult task, I don’t wish to think about constipation
……………………………………….. during my holidays!
• The peaceful atmosphere between Christmas and New Year
was rapidly disrupted by reading this manuscript.
• This is a long, but excellent report. [...] It hurts me a little to
have so little criticism of a manuscript.
• Very much enjoyed reading this one, and do not have any
significant comments. Wish I had thought of this one.
(Source: Environmental Microbiology)
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 16

17. Responding to Reviews
A request for revisions is a good sign, but it does not guarantee that
your paper will be accepted!
• Respond to every comment or question
• You do not have to do everything that reviewers ask, but pick your battles
carefully
- Provide strong justification for not complying
- Use Editor comments for guidance, especially when reviews are
inharmonious
• Be as respectful and responsive as possible
- Remember- reviewers are trying to help you
- Assume positive intent! 7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 17

18. Your response should be easy to follow.
• Indicate what was changed and where
- Include original & revised text in your response
- Use line numbers if allowed
- Submit “tracked” and “clean” revisions
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 18

19. Responding to Reviews
Put yourself in the reviewers’ position
• A good review takes many hours to complete
• Reviewers are volunteering their time
• Good reviewers are usually very busy people
Put yourself in the editor’s position
• Editors often do not receive any compensation
• Make it easy for them to make a decision about your revised paper
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 19

20. Responding to Reviews
• Do not ignore any comment or suggestion
• Responses to avoid
- We disagree with this suggestion
- We chose not to follow this suggestion because we felt it was
inappropriate
- Following this suggestion would be too much additional work
• Educate your reviewer
- If they misunderstood something, make it clear
- If they are incorrect, respectfully explain why
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 20

21. Responding to Reviews
Responding to suggestions you disagree with
Bad
• The reviewer is clearly ignorant of the work of Kunkel et
al. (2008) showing that the ribonucleoside monophosphates are
incorporated into the genome during DNA synthesis……
Good
• Thank you for your comment. However, we feel that
the assumption in our model is supported by recent work
by Kunkel et al. (2008), who showed that the
ribonucleoside monophosphates are incorporated into the
genome during DNA synthesis. 7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 21

22. Responding to Reviews -
Follow instructions!
• Revise and resubmit promptly
- Do not miss the deadline
- Ask for an extension if you need one
• Correct formatting errors, improve figures
• Recheck author names, order and affiliations
• Confirm references, revise and update as needed
• Do not add information that has not been requested unless
there is a compelling reason to do so
• If you identify errors during the revision, correct them and
point out the changes in your response.
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 22

23. Responding to Reviews
Possible outcomes:
• The editor may send your revised paper back to reviewers
- Usually goes to the original reviewers, in rare cases may go
to new reviewers
• The editor may make a decision without sending your
revised paper back to reviewers
- May request additional revisions on their own
- May accept or reject the revised paper
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 23

24. Responding to Reviews
To learn to think like a reviewer, do reviews
• Ask mentors to recommend you if they decline
• Accept review invitations whenever possible
- If you cannot do a thorough review on time, please decline and suggest an
alternate
Reviewing also helps you gain recognition
• Let journal editors know you are interested and willing to do reviews in your area
of expertise
- Once editors know you are a good reviewer, you will be inundated with requests!
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 24

25. The publication process
Ahead of Print (AOP) publication
Many journals now publish papers online soon after they are
accepted, before the paper goes into print publication
Often publish a PDF of the final Word version of your paper without
any copyediting or layout
- May or may not give you an opportunity to review the paper a
final time before AOP
Some journals will update the AOP copy with copyedited
versions - AOP version ultimately replaced with print version
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 25

26. The publication process
Copyediting
• Managing editors or copyeditors review papers before publication
Queries
• Grammar and spelling errors
• References and citations
• Ambiguous or inconsistent information
• May provide suggestions re: content or organization
• Respond promptly, politely and completely
• Queries at the page proof stage
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 26

27. The publication process
Page proofs
• Final copy of the typeset version of the paper
• Review for completeness, typographical errors, errors in
references
• Placement and formatting of tables and figures
- Some journals create new figures be sure to check for
accuracy
Final check for errors!
• Do not add new information
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 27

28. The Publication Process
Press Release
• Some journals write PRs for selected papers
- Will ask you firsta
- Your own institution may do a PR for you
• Be sure to review the PR before it is released
Embargo
• Paper accepted but online publication delayed to provide
media with time to prepare stories
• Ask journal about their policy
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 28

29. What leads to
ACCEPTANCE – Top 10 list
 Attention to details
 Choose the right journal
 Consider reviewers' comments
 English must be as good as possible
 Present your ideas clearly and concisely
 Take your time with revisions
 Acknowledge those who have helped you
 New, original and previously unpublished work
 Critically evaluate your own manuscript
 Ethical rules must be obeyed
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 29

30. Applying the Workshop Content to Your Manuscript
PLEASE SHARE WITH THE GROUP!
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 30

31. After publication
7/28/17The Publishing Process, How to Deal with Journal/Editor? 31