Post on 18-Jan-2016
transcript
2012 1
Manuscript Review
Prepared by Noni MacDonald MD FRCPc Editor-in-Chief Paediatrics and Child HealthFormer Editor-in -Chief CMAJ
www.newmoon.uk.com/ritual/magickal-ink.gif
2012 2
Objectives By the end of this discussion, the
participant will be able to
1. Outline the steps for manuscript review and acceptance at a medical journal
2. List the major factors peer reviewers are asked to take into account in reviewing a manuscript
3. Describe other factors editors also consider
4. Explain editorial terms like –intercept, revise, overhaul
2012 3
Authors Manuscript
Editor and Editorial Staff
Intercept*
Peer Review1234
Reject
Revise
Galley Proofs
Issue for publication set
Paper publishedOnline- print
Re-submit
2012 4
Intercept-The Big “NO” LetterEditor + an associate editor
looked over the manuscript: decided-
not a fit by topic * bad science* poorly written* too many articles on topic not fit format of journal other……No Reviews attached
upload.wikimedia.org
2012 5
Authors Manuscript
Editor and Editorial Staff
Intercept
Peer Review*1234
Reject
Revise
Galley Proofs
Issue for publication set
Paper publishedOnline- print
Re-submit
2012 6
Peer Review 1Editor or assoc ed decides is worthy
to go out for review2 to 6 reviewers selected • may include 1 or 2 suggested by author• looking for at least 2 to 3 reviews to come in• electronic review invitations faster, attached to database
20127
Peer Review: CriteriaScientific Quality methods -including stats data for conclusionsPresentation clarity of writing title - specific - fits content abstract - brief, clear figures and tables
Research Violations ethics: human,animalRating rank to sci in fieldConfidential novelty, significanceComments for Author # each, design, data consistent with rating
2012
Peer Review Criteria Check
List 1. Importance of research question2. Originality of research3. Delineation of strengths & weaknesses methodology/experimental / statistical/interpretation of results4. Writing style-table /figure presentation,citations accurate5. Ethical concerns human,animal, no plagerism, no COI6. Is it a good read?
Benos et al Advances in Physiology Education 2003;27:47-52
Roberts et al. Academic Psychiatry 2004:28:81-87
2012 9
Peer Review: Criteria
Manuscript “privileged” information do not disclose to othersDestroy after your
review- paper,tables, figures etc
If shared work of review- when report state with whom did this
2012 10
Peer Review: Editors Evaluation
1. Thoroughness, comprehensiveness2. Timeliness3. Citation of evidence to support
critique4. Constructive criticism5. Objectivity6. Clear statement re priority and
appropriatenessBenos et al Advances in Physiology Education 2003;27:47-52
2012 11
Authors Manuscript
Editor and Editorial Staff
Intercept
Peer Review1234
Reject
Revise
Galley Proofs
Issue for publication set
Paper publishedOnline- print
Re-submit
2012 12
Reject Letter
Take time review comments editor, reviewers Consider submit to another journal resubmit to same journal: address all concerns
bp0.blogger.com
2012 13
Authors Manuscript
Editor and Editorial Staff
Intercept
Peer Review1234
Reject
Revise
Galley Proofs
Issue for publication set
Paper publishedOnline- print
Re-submit
2012 14
Revise = Accept One step closerAddress all comments change what can, explain why not if notTake your time but do NOT dawdle serious work May go out for review
again……commerce.concordia.ca
2012 15
Authors Manuscript
Editor and Editorial Staff
Intercept
Peer Review1234
Reject
Revise
Galley Proofs
Issue for publication set
Paper publishedOnline- print
Re-submit
2012 16
Galley Proofs = Accept 1. Only get one set2. Usually on line or email3. Answer all queries4. Check with great care - tables - figures - text = data - citations - authors names and spelling5 Time deadline!!!!6. Can now say article “in press” - often up online epub ahead of
print – can cite
2012 17
Authors Manuscript
Editor and Editorial Staff
Intercept
Peer Review1234
Reject
Revise
Galley Proofs
Issue for publication set
Paper publishedOnline- print
Re-submit
2012 18
We are building our boat and sailing it at the same time.
David Heymann WHO on SARS crisis
Explore.ca
Peggy’s Cove, Canada
Research and Writing a Paper
Reviewing Your Paper
2012 19
Authors Manuscript
Editor and Editorial Staff
Intercept
Peer Review1234
Reject
Revise
Galley Proofs
Issue for publication set
Paper publishedOnline- print
Re-submit