SCIENTIFIC TECHNICAL WRITING The Review Process Communicating Science

SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL WRITING The Review Process Communicating Science: 3. 2, 3. 3, 3. 4 Prof. R. L. Boxman Tel Aviv University R. L. Boxman, 9/2000

What happens when you submit your paper? • Editor chooses referee(s) – Peer Review • i. e. other researchers • Opinion valued by editor • Hopefully experts in the field 12/02/2022 2

Referee • Referees read and evaluate paper according to guidelines given by editor. 12/02/2022 3

Editor’s decision • Almost always follows referee’s recommendations (or consensus opinion) • Usually demands incorporation of all the corrections, of all of the referees • If there is a split between the referees, usually a third opinion from a very senior or trusted referee is sought (with or without being given the previous reports), or possibly a reaction from the author might be sought • Editor informs 1 st author (or designated corresponding author) of his decision, enclosing copies of the reviews. 12/02/2022 4

Authors’ Response • Send copies to all of your co-authors • Study the referee’s report carefully – Give the referee credit for being an expert and an experienced reader • Was an error noted in the review? There is a good chance the referee is correct. • If the referee didn’t understand what you were saying, there is a good chance you didn’t express yourself well. 12/02/2022 5

Authors’ Response continued • However, reviewers are mere humans, and sometimes they are lazy, self-serving, and/or not so expert • In case of rejection, you may – (a) abandon the paper; – (b) re-submit to the same journal • incorporate suggestions of referees where possible • write a cover letter rebutting points where you feel the referee erred. – (c) incorporate suggestions of referees and submit to another journal 12/02/2022 6

Authors’ Response continued • In case of acceptance with revisions: – Incorporate the revisions required and requested into the revised m/s – Write a cover letter to the editor, not the reviewer • (a) Indicating the location of the major revisions, and • (b) Indicating that all the minor (i. e. typographical) corrections were made • Key your letter to the enumerated comments of the referee – If the comments are not numbered, number them yourself by hand, and enclose a copy of the referee’s report with the numbering 12/02/2022 7

Authors’ Response continued • If and only if the referee requires revisions that you cannot live with, rebut those points in your cover letter • Do not include additional explanations or notes to the referee on revised points – If the reviewer can’t understand what you are trying to say from the m/s, then the m/s is deficient • In cases where the referee’s comments were particularly helpful, it is appropriate to so indicate in your cover letter 12/02/2022 8

Editor’s Response to Authors’ Response • For minor revisions, and if the author clearly indicates the location thereof – editor will approve the m/s, and – send it to the copy editor, and then to typesetting • For major revisions, or if the editor is not convinced that the author complied with the referee’s demands, the editor may send the revised m/s back to the referee for approval 12/02/2022 9

How to Write a Review • Review typically composed of: – (I) form or questionnaire, – (II) comments, – (III) marginal notations, – (IV) cover letter. 12/02/2022 10

I. Questionnaire • Reminds referee of key points • Summarizes critical evaluation points (“bottom line”) for the editor 12/02/2022 11

II. Comments • Should be typed on plain paper – no letterhead or notations identifying referee or institution • Set a good example by using good form, style, and proper English • Two main parts: – A. General Evaluation – B. Specific Comments 12/02/2022 12

Comments – General Evaluation 1. Summarize subject matter, and key findings (1 -2 sentences) 2. Evaluate: a. Novelty or originality (new material or old stuff? ) The author “helps” the referee (and him/herself) by the inclusion of a clear ‘gap’ sentence and ‘statement of purpose’ in the introduction. b. Correctness Is the methodology sound? Are there technical mistakes? 12/02/2022 13

General Evaluation continued c. Significance Is the result important? Who cares? d. Clarity, language and style e. Context Are relevant sources cited? Are results compared to previous results? 12/02/2022 14

General Evaluation continued 3. Recommendation: – Accept • As is • With minor revisions • With major revisions – Refer to another journal (specify) more relevant to subject area – Reject 12/02/2022 15

Comments – Specific Comments • All negative comments in sections noted above (in General Evaluation and in Questionnaire) should be detailed here. • Comments should be numbered and keyed to specific locations in the manuscript (page and line numbers, etc. ). • Comments should be helpful where possible – tell author how to improve specific point, rather than just saying that something is not OK. 12/02/2022 16

III. Marginal Notations • Short • Clear – Content – Mostly used for typographical, spelling, and grammar corrections. 12/02/2022 17

IV. Cover Letter • On letterhead with all your “communications data” • Short - one sentence usually sufficient • See “business letters” (next lecture) 12/02/2022 18

Page Proofs • After typesetting, author is sent “page proof” (a. k. a. galley proof) • Author should promptly read and correct proofs (within 2 -3 days) • Only minor (i. e. typographical) corrections are permitted – no major changes! 12/02/2022 19

Technical Matters • Copyright – 1 st author must sign – Otherwise, journal cannot publish • Page Charges – Clearly understand page charge policy before submitting to a journal • Preprints – Avoid “publishing” – keep numbers limited • Reprints – If free, share with co-authors 12/02/2022 20

Evolution of Scientific Publication • History – Hand-written letters addressed to trusted colleagues in Archimedes’ time – Great printed journals 18 th - 20 th centuries – Rapidly evolving on-line web-based scene dominating the early 21 st century • Cost burden – Darwin was paid handsomely to write – Today authors’ institutions bear increasing share of publication costs 12/02/2022 21

Evolution of Scientific Publication continued • Electronic distribution – Faster – Cheaper – Supports inexpensive color graphics • Open access – tax-funded research results should be freely available to all tax-payers 12/02/2022 22

Evolution of Scientific Publication continued • Where to publish? My advice: – Ignore metrics – Publish where good papers in your field are published 12/02/2022 23