8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

1/36

Addressing Reviewers Comments

and Revising Manuscripts After PeerReview

Moyses Szklo

Editor-in-ChiefAmerican Journal of Epidemiology

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

2/36

EIC believes it should

be rejected out of hand

(low priority) 2ndeditor

Agrees: paper

is rejected

Disagrees

Outside reviews

Editor believes it should

go to external reviewers Agrees

Disagrees

Changes his mind

and agrees: paper

is rejected Disagrees

Peer Review Process in the American Journal of Epidemiology

Paper reviewed by EIC

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

3/36

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

4/36

Primary Prevention

In a case-based case-control study, odds ratios instead of

beta coefficients

In a cross-sectional study or when calculating cumulativeincidence ratio without adjustment for time-to-event,prevalence ratio regression

Presentation of p values, 95% confidence limits and standarderrors simultaneously is often redundant

Be careful when comparing association strengths

Stratified data instead of interaction terms (the latter areuseful for statistical testing and for predictive equations)

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

5/36

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

6/36

(Spiegelman D, Hertzmark E, Am J Epidemiol 2005;162:199-200)

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

7/36

Primary Prevention

In a case-based case-control study, odds ratios instead of

beta coefficients

In a cross-sectional study or when calculating cumulativeincidence ratio without adjustment for time-to-event,prevalence/incidence ratio regression

Presentation of p values, 95% confidence limits and standarderrors simultaneously is often redundant

Be careful when comparing association strengths

Stratified data instead of interaction terms (the latter areuseful for statistical testing and for predictive equations)

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

8/36

Primary Prevention

In a case-based case-control study, odds ratios instead ofbeta coefficients

In a cross-sectional study or when calculating cumulativeincidence ratio without adjustment for time-to-event,

prevalence/incidence ratio regression

Presentation of p values, 95% confidence limits and standarderrors simultaneously is often redundant

Be careful when comparing association strengths

Stratified data instead of interaction terms (the latter areuseful for statistical testing and for predictive equations)

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

9/36

Primary Prevention

In a case-based case-control study, odds ratios instead of

beta coefficients

In a cross-sectional study or when calculating cumulativeincidence ratio without adjustment for time-to-event,prevalence/incidence ratio regression

Presentation of p values, 95% confidence limits and standarderrors simultaneously is often redundant

Be careful when comparing association strengths

Stratified data instead of interaction terms (the latter areuseful for statistical testing and for predictive equations)

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

10/36

Association of Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale

(CES-D) scores (ln(CES-D + 1) with bereavement and baseline

CES-D scores at 1 and 12-month interviews, adjusted for health

and social network variables

, widowed and married women aged65-74 yrs, Washington Co., MD, 1979-83

1-month 12 months

Factor SE t test SE t test

o 0.76 0.10 7.9 0.74 0.09 8.3

Widowed 1.93 0.15 13.3 0.31 0.10 3.2

CES-D (baseline) 0.44 0.05 9.0 0.40 0.05 8.6

CES-D * widowed -0.32 0.09 -3.8

Self-reported health status, level of physical activity, family size and friendship

size; p

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

11/36

Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) Mean

Baseline and Follow-up Scores According to Whether

Bereavement Occurred, Women Ages 65-75 Years, Washington

County, MD, 1979-1983

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

baseline 1 month 12 months

married

widowed

*Adjusted for self-reported health status, level of phys. activity, family size

and friendship size; Test for interaction between status and difference [1

month baseline]: p

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

12/36

Read carefully the Instructions to Authors (focus on maximumnumber of pages, other rules of presentation e.g., AjE requires aa

to plot ratio-based measures on a log scale)

Do not submit the same or similar publications to different journals

Avoid abbreviations

Description of results in text should follow the same order as in table

Avoid the word, effect, when reporting observational results

Make sure text, tables and figures match. When a result is presentedonly in the text, add parenthetically something like not shown intable/figure

Primary Prevention

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

13/36

Read carefully the Instructions to Authors (focus on limit on numberof pages, other rules of presentation e.g., AjE requires aa to plot

ratio-based measures on a log scale)

Avoid abbreviations

Description of results in text should follow the same order as in table

Avoid the word, effect, when reporting observational results

Make sure text, tables and figures match. When a result is presentedonly in the text, add parenthetically something like not shown in

table/figure

Primary Prevention

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

14/36

Read carefully the Instructions to Authors (focus on limit on numberof pages, other rules of presentation e.g., AjE requires aa to plot

ratio-based measures on a log scale)

Avoid abbreviations

Description of results in text should follow the same order as in table

Avoid the word, effect, when reporting observational results

Make sure text, tables and figures match. When a result is presentedonly in the text, add parenthetically something like not shown in

table/figure

Primary Prevention

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

15/36

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

16/36

Read carefully the Instructions to Authors (focus on limit on numberof pages, other rules of presentation e.g., AjE requires aa to plot

ratio-based measures on a log scale)

Avoid abbreviations

Description of results in text should follow the same order as in table

Avoid the word, effect, when reporting observational results

Make sure text, tables and figures match. When a result is presentedonly in the text, add parenthetically something like not shown in

table/figure

Primary Prevention

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

17/36

(Wang N et al, Am J Epidemiol 2009 [Epub ahead of print])

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

18/36

Read carefully the Instructions to Authors (focus on limit on numberof pages, other rules of presentation e.g., AjE requires aa to plot

ratio-based measures on a log scale)

Avoid abbreviations

Description of results in text should follow the same order as in table

Avoid the word, effect, when reporting observational results

Make sure text, tables and figures match. When a result is presentedonly in the text, add parenthetically something like not shown in

table/figure

Primary Prevention

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

19/36

Focus on trends, not just on testing or precision

Do not repeat results in the text that are clearly shown in tables

Discuss the studys limitations

Paper should be as short as possible

Primary Prevention

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

20/36

Focus on trends, not just on testing or precision

Discuss the studys limitations

Paper should be as short as possible

Primary Prevention

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

21/36

Focus on trends, not just on testing or precision

Discuss the studys limitations

Paper should be as short as possible

Primary Prevention

Avoiding wordiness (Friedman AJE 1990;132:591)

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

22/36

The amount ofmoney spent on diapers, without consideration of inflation,

has been used as a proxy by several groups of

investigators, and all have reported that no significant

differences were observed once the data were stratified by

age at last full term pregnancy. Similar results were found in

the analysis and reported here. (73 words)

Other investigations exploring the association between

multiparity and scleroderma have obtained information on

multiparity using surrogate measures.

Shortened: Other investigators have used surrogate

multiparity measures, such as amount spent on diapers,without inflation adjustment; as with our study, no

significant differences were identified in data stratified by

age at last full term pregnancy.(35 words)

Avoiding wordiness (Friedman, AJE 1990;132:591)

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

23/36

lleged letter from Mark Twain to a friend

Dear

I am sorry that I have written you such a long

letter. I did not have any time to writeyou a short one

S d P ti

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

24/36

Responding to Reviewers Comments

In your cover letter, answer each critique/comment made byreviewers.

Highlight in the revised paper the changes made as a result of thereviewers comments.

Be courteous. A good idea is to start your response with, I thank thereviewer for this thoughtful suggestion (that is, if you think it isthoughtful)

Try to consider carefully each suggestion or comment.

If you disagree somewhat with the request for a change, but it iseasy to implement it and it does not affect the sciencedo it!

If you disagree entirely with a criticism and believe it is scientificallysound, explain why.

Secondary Prevention:

S d P ti

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

25/36

Responding to Reviewers Comments

In your cover letter, answer each critique/comment made byreviewers.

Highlight in the revised paper the changes made as a result of thereviewers comments.

Be courteous. A good idea is to start your response with, I thank thereviewer for this thoughtful suggestion (that is, if you think it isthoughtful)

Try to consider carefully each suggestion or comment.

If you disagree somewhat with the request for a change, but it iseasy to implement it and it does not affect the sciencedo it!

If you disagree entirely with a criticism and believe it is scientificallysound, explain why.

Secondary Prevention:

S d P ti

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

26/36

Responding to Reviewers Comments

In your cover letter, answer each critique/comment made byreviewers.

Highlight in the revised paper the changes made as a result of thereviewers comments.

Be courteous. A good idea is to start your response with, I thank thereviewer for this thoughtful suggestion (that is, if you think it isthoughtful)

Try to consider carefully each suggestion or comment.

If you disagree somewhat with the request for a change, but it iseasy to implement it and it does not affect the sciencedo it!

If you disagree entirely with a criticism and believe it is scientificallysound, explain why.

Secondary Prevention:

Secondary Prevention:

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

27/36

Responding to Reviewers Comments

In your cover letter, answer each critique/comment made byreviewers.

Highlight in the revised paper the changes made as a result of thereviewers comments.

Be courteous. A good idea is to start your response with, I thank thereviewer for this thoughtful suggestion (that is, if you think it isthoughtful)

Try to consider carefully each suggestion or comment.

If you disagree somewhat with the request for a change, but it iseasy to implement it and it does not affect the sciencedo it!

If you disagree entirely with a criticism and believe it is scientificallysound, explain why.

Secondary Prevention:

Secondary Prevention:

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

28/36

Responding to Reviewers Comments

In your cover letter, answer each critique/comment made byreviewers.

Highlight in the revised paper the changes made as a result of thereviewers comments.

Be courteous. A good idea is to start your response with, I thank thereviewer for this thoughtful suggestion (that is, if you think it isthoughtful)

Try to consider carefully each suggestion or comment.

If you disagree with a request for a change, but it is easy toimplement it and it does not affect the sciencedo it!

If you disagree entirely with a criticism and believe it is scientificallysound, explain why.

Secondary Prevention:

Secondary Prevention:

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

29/36

Responding to Reviewers Comments

In your cover letter, answer each critique/comment made byreviewers.

Highlight in the revised paper the changes made as a result of thereviewers comments.

Be courteous. A good idea is to start your response with, I thank thereviewer for this thoughtful suggestion (that is, if you think it isthoughtful)

Try to consider carefully each suggestion or comment.

If you disagree with a request for a change, but it is easy toimplement it and it does not affect the sciencedo it!

If you disagree entirely with a criticism and believe it is scientificallysound, explain why.

Secondary Prevention:

Tertiary Prevention

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

30/36

Tertiary Prevention

Should authors request reconsideration if you paper has been rejected,

and you believe that the reasons for rejection were not reasonable?

I am sorry to inform you that after careful review, we are unable to accept yourpaper for publication. As you know, we can accept only a fraction of the meritorious

manuscripts submitted to theAmerican Journal of Epidemiology. I appreciate the

considerable effort that you and your colleagues have put into this manuscript and

am sorry to bring you this unfavorable news.

The comments of the reviewers are enclosed for your consideration. I hope the

information provided by the reviewers will be helpful if you decide to revise the

manuscript for submission to another journal. Please keep in mind that our

decisions regarding acceptance of manuscripts are based not only on the

reviewers' comments to the authors, but also on the reviewers' comments to

the editor, in-house evaluations by editors, and an assessment of the priority

rating of the manuscript in relation to our many other submissions.

On behalf of the Journal, I thank you for submitting your manuscript and hope that

the outcome of this specific review will not discourage you from sending future

papers to us.

Sincerely

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

31/36

Decisions made for submissions to the AjE between

1/1/08 and 6/30/08

Accepted

Total

No.*No. not

pending

No. %

Original contributions, meta-analysis

and rapid communications

510 382 29 8

Practice of Epi 138 108 5 4

Commentaries, Editorials and Special

Articles

23 21 11 52

Reviews 9 4 1 25

Letters to the Editor 29 25 19 76

Book Reviews 5 5 5 100

Total 714 545 70 13

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

32/36

E-mail message from an European author uponreceiving a rejection letter:

Dr. Szklo,

What could I expect from an american (sic) editor? I

will no longer buy american (sic) products.

R t d j ti li f Chi

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

33/36

Reputed rejection slip from a Chinese

economics journal

We have read your manuscript with boundless delight.

If we were to publish your paper, it would be impossible

for us to publish any work of a lower standard.

And, as it is unthinkable that, in the next onethousand years, we shall see its equal,

we are, to our regret, compelled to return your divine

composition, and to beg you a thousand times to overlook our

short sight and timidity.

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

34/36

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

35/36

Adjusted* Risk (Hazard) Ratios of Coronary Heart Disease by

Selected Factors, with 95% Confidence Intervals, Men 40-64 Yrs.

Old at Baseline, 5-year Follow-up, 1975-79

Factor Units Hazard Ratio

Age 10 years 4.5

Cholesterol 40 mg/dL 1.7

Smoking Heavy smokers (20+

cig/day) vs non-smokers

3.1

Family History Yes vs no 1.8

*Each variable is simultaneously adjusted for all other variables

seen in the table using Cox Proportional Hazards model

Relative Risk of Pancreatic cancer in Relation to Drinks per Day by Gender

8/12/2019 RIP-Szklo-3-26-09

36/36

Relative Risk of Pancreatic cancer in Relation to Drinks per Day by Gender

in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study, USA, 1995/1996-2003