The Peer Review
Process: Where the Jury is on Your Side
Nan Knight
|
|
Printer-friendly
version
|
Time to be judged by a jury of your peers: You've
written a scientific paper. Feel intimidated?
You shouldn't, because peer review is the stamp
of authenticity that tells scientists around the
world that a journal and its contents can be relied
on for accurate and innovative information. The
referee process has saved countless authors from
embarrassment, premature announcement of results,
and incomplete or inaccurate publication.
For most scientists and even for nonscientists
working in the scientific setting, publication
in a peer-reviewed journal is a prerequisite to
promotion, tenure, and additional research funding.
Job descriptions often contain explicit requirements
for number and type of publications required for
advancement.
Yet the process continues to inspire some anxiety.
Even when you have a terrific research project,
unimpeachable data, and groundbreaking conclusions,
you worry. Who will read your manuscript? Will
they understand the point you're trying to make?
How much time will pass before you find out if
it's accepted or rejected? What criteria are being
used to evaluate your submitted materials?
The following summary of the peer review process
assumes that you selected a publication in which
you hope to publish your results, that you have
written your article according to the guidelines
of that publication, and that you are ready to
submit a finished work.
How The Peer Review Process Works
Most submissions to peer-reviewed scientific
journals are unsolicited. Authors send editor(s)
manuscripts hoping for acceptance in the publication.
Editors rely on colleagues who serve as referees
in deciding which articles are most suitable.
Journal editors sometimes request articles on
designated topics from specific authors. However,
even these articles usually will be peer reviewed
for scientific content.
Journal staff members log in the date on which
manuscripts are received. This is more than tidy
record keeping; when disputes over scientific
priority arise, such dates can take on legal and
ethical significance for the author(s) and for
the journal.
Most journals include a preliminary scan phase,
in which staff members review the form and content
of the manuscript. Articles that clearly are not
pertinent to the subject matter of the journal
or that are intended for a different audience
are rejected and the authors notified. Many journals
reject articles in which the use of English is
so nonstandard that ideas and facts cannot be
understood. (This should not discourage those
for whom English is a second language. Some journals
suggest services that rewrite for a fee. Editors
often offer to consider a manuscript again after
it has been rewritten in standard English.)
Some journals with hundreds of monthly submissions
employ staff members or consultants who summarize
content in one or two paragraphs for senior editorial
review. Writing your abstract clearly, so that
it conveys with concision your main points, will
ensure that it makes it through this funnel point
intact.
Small journals may have only one editor, and
large journals may have several editors, each
of whom specializes in one area of the field.
Editors select a number of manuscripts each month
to be sent out for peer review. Manuscripts may
be reviewed by as few as two and as many as five
scientists with established expertise and records
of publication in the pertinent subject matter.
The Jury Is Blindfolded (For The Most Part)
All peer reviewers are blinded to the names of
the author(s), the institutions or companies at
which the work was done, and any other identifying
material that may have been submitted originally
with the manuscript. In theory, this frees the
reviewer from any possibility that his or her
perceptions of the scientific work might be tinged
by positive or negative opinions of the author(s)
or other work from the same site. In fact, if
the area of expertise is fairly narrow and the
subject matter of your paper is only under investigation
by a few researchers, your peer reviewers may
have a pretty good idea of your identity. However,
the formality of the peer review process helps
to facilitate as much as possible an objective
and realistic assessment of manuscripts.
This realistic assessment is also aided by the
fact that blinding works both ways: you will not
know who has reviewed your paper. Again, if your
field is small, the tenor of the comments may
lead you to suspect the identity of one or more
of your reviewers. Even if you're fairly sure,
tradition says to be circumspect.
Most comments and assessments from reviewers
are still completed on hard copy (although electronic
peer-review is on the rise). Your reviewer will
write comments directly onto the manuscript and
complete a short questionnaire from the journal,
rating the article on points such as clarity,
originality, quality of scientific work, contribution
to the field, and overall suitability for publication
in the journal.
What's Taking So Long?
A month has passed since you submitted your manuscript.
Two months. Sometimes more. You call the editorial
offices only to discover that your manuscript
is "still in the peer review process."
What's going on?
The initial review may have taken several weeks.
The assignment process and actual transmittal
of manuscripts takes more time. Individual referees
are given anywhere from a week to a month to comment
on manuscripts. Some referees write their comments
directly onto their copy of the manuscript. Others
make separate lists of comments and additional
queries for the author. The manuscript must then
be returned to the journal's editorial offices,
where it takes its place in a queue of other articles.
Questionnaires are tallied and comments are collated,
so that the editors can make a final assessment.
On some journals, three or more months may pass
before you hear the decision on your manuscript.
(This delay is one of the reasons that many refereed
journals include non-peer-reviewed news sections,
so that topics of interest can be covered immediately.)
In This Court, It's Not "Guilty" Or
"Innocent"
The envelope is in your mailbox. You may think
that the answer will be either "accepted"
or "rejected," but, like other aspects
of the process, it's seldom as simple as that.
The answer can be:
Accepted, without changes: A real rarity in scientific
publishing. Even the best scientific work, reported
in crystal-clear prose and with the most stunning
images, can be improved by suggestions from the
editor and reviewers. Trust their judgments.
Accepted, with changes: Requested changes may
be as simple as clarifying a sentence or a procedure
for a reviewer. Sometimes, however, editors may
request a complete rewrite. Your results may be
important and deserve publication, but your data
might be better organized or presented differently.
You will have a chance to read and respond to
all comments from reviewers.
Rejected: Most editors will tell you precisely
why your article has been rejected in the peer
review process. Sometimes a manuscript may be
rejected because it covers a topic that the journal
recently featured in a special issue. Often articles
that detail excellent scientific work are rejected
simply because the reviewers do not believe the
work adds new information to the field. And, although
it's painful, if your article was rejected because
it was not judged to be worthy of publication,
this is information you can turn to your own advantage
in the long run.
Responding To Peer Reviews
First, breathe deeply and look at the big picture.
Criticism, whether as part of requested changes
or an outright rejection, is a part of the process.
Moreover, this was anonymous, so it's not directed
personally at you or your coauthors.
If your article was accepted: You will need to
consider carefully every comment and query. As
journal referees and editors would be the first
to tell you, they aren't always right. Experienced
journal authors often make photocopies of comments,
number them sequentially through the article or
correspondence, and key these to numbered responses
on a separate page or pages. Your answers should
be brief, clear, and address the specific subject
of the comment or inquiry. Don't hesitate to point
out instances in which the reviewer may have misunderstood
or in which the reviewer has made erroneous assumptions.
However, remember that your readers may do the
same. You may need to reword or insert clarifications
in the text.
The tone of the letter accompanying your responses
should be both friendly and professional and indicate
your willingness to work with the journal on any
additional information or input needed in the
publication process. Between acceptance and publication,
you will see your article in the proofing stage.
You may be called on to answer additional questions
from the editing staff. Keep your cool during
these stages in which you may find small changes
in wording. The journal's goal is the same as
yours: to publish your article with clarity and
concision and in a timely manner.
If your article was rejected: If you read the
comments and decide that the referees were unfair
or in error, you should speak up. It's perfectly
acceptable to call the editor to discuss the rejection.
However, you may be more successful in maintaining
an even tone and expressing yourself clearly if
you itemize your concerns in a letter. Most editors
will respond quickly.
In rare instances, you may believe that the reviewer
was unprofessional in his or her comments. Most
editors will not allow sarcastic or demeaning
remarks to be passed back to authors. In fact,
a good editor will take these as a sign to drop
a reviewer from the roster of referees. When such
comments appear on the author copy, you may choose
to provide the editor with substantive, detailed
responses. But choose your battles carefully.
Your manuscript may simply not be up to journal
standards, and pushing too far won't win friends
at either the journal or among your scientific
colleagues.
Consider A Retrial
Save your letter of rejection (even if that means
taping together all the pieces you tore it into).
Look carefully at the reasons the editor has given
for rejection. Decide whether a simple fix--or
a more substantial rewrite--could make the article
suitable for publication in another refereed journal
in your field. If not, consider reworking your
manuscript for a non-peer-reviewed journal or
for a public audience. Just because you've been
rejected by one journal does not mean that your
work is inferior or that your research does not
merit a wider audience.
The Jury Gets Friendlier
Many scientists have CVs listing authorship and
co-authorship on hundreds of articles in prestigious
peer-reviewed journals. Their secret is that publishing
in refereed journals gets easier the more they
do it. They submit articles to the same four or
five journals and keep each journal's style guide
and author directions handy. They remember what
each journal is looking for in tone and content
and keep in mind the audience the journal reaches.
They respond quickly and reliably to comments,
queries, and requests for additional information.
Most important, these authors make the process
of preparing articles for publication an integral
part of the scientific endeavor, readying manuscripts
as quickly as possible after the completion of
specific segments of work. The result is the submission
of fresh and relevant data that is appropriate
for publication, adequately explained and supported,
and arranged in a format consistent with the targeted
journal's style. Such articles are seldom rejected.
Fast Forward: Speeding Publication Online
Increasing numbers of scientific journals are
available online. Many are using the electronic
environment to create a revolution in publication
turnaround times. Some traditional all-hardcopy
journals have lag times of as much as a year between
initial submission and final publication. Scientists
have long complained that data becomes stale and
careers are sometimes compromised by such delays.
Some journals now use the Web to facilitate the
publication process, now completing it in less
than a month. "Our peer reviewers know that
we want their responses in one week," says
Carol Carr, Managing Editor of Organic Letters,
which appears in both online and hardcopy versions.
"As much as possible, we use the Web and
e-mail for submissions, galleys, and queries."
The result can be as little as 2 weeks between
submission and publication on the Web. "The
actual process and integrity of peer review remain
the same," says Carr.
Several scientific editors advise that you check
out online publications thoroughly before submitting
an article. You'll want to make sure that the
publication is reputable and that it adheres to
the traditional journal standards.
Nan Knight is a freelance science writer and
editor whose credits include Smithsonian exhibits,
Discovery Channel Web sites, and a wide range
of publications on radiation in medicine.
Related Reading
The Fourth International Congress on Peer Review
in Biomedical Publication featured 3 days for
presentations from the podium, including 41
presentations of new research into peer review
and all aspects of scientific publication.
"Implementing
Peer Review On The Net: Scientific Quality Control
In Scholarly Electronic Journals" by
Stevan Harnad argues that peer review can and
should be implemented on the Net, and hierarchically,
much as it was in paper, generating a pyramid
of periodicals, with the highest quality ones
at the top and the unrefereed vanity press at
the bottom.
Also by Stevan Harnad, "The
Invisible Hand of Peer Review" (Exploit
Interactive, issue 5, April 2000) offers a proposal
for online-only refereed journals.
In January 2001, after three years of discussion,
the editors of journals published by the American
Chemical Society issued a statement summing up
their position on electronic preprints. The issues
surrounding the debate were summarized in the
January
15, 2001 issue of Chemical & Engineering
News and the full
text of the policy is available on the ACS
Publications Web site.
|