Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Seeing papers from reviewer’s perspective

These slides will:
- Walk you through a peer-review process
- Practical tips for authors of scientific publications
- Practical tips for future reviewers
Slides accompany Elena Sügis talk at BREW 2020 workshop.

  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Seeing papers from reviewer’s perspective

  1. 1. BREW 2020
 21 May 2020 Seeing papers from reviewer’s perspective Elena Sügis TARTU
  2. 2. BREW 2020
 21 May 2020 International Conference of Research in Computational Molecular Biology BREW 2011 Tartu
 BREW 2012 Bergen Computational Biology TARTU
  3. 3. AIM • Walk you though a peer-review process • Practical tips for authors of scientific publications • Practical tips for future reviewers
  4. 4. BREW 2020
 21 May 2020 Sounds familiar?
  5. 5. Peer review process
  6. 6. https://ucsd.libguides.com/aep-sci/peer Scientific journals and regular magazines PEER REVIEW PROCESS
  7. 7. https://ucsd.libguides.com/aep-sci/peer Scientific journals and regular magazines
  8. 8. https://ucsd.libguides.com/aep-sci/peer Scientific journals and regular magazines
  9. 9. Reviewers work. What it means for you Determine whether the paper should be accepted or rejected https://ucsd.libguides.com/aep-sci/peer
  10. 10. https://ucsd.libguides.com/aep-sci/peer Who are reviewers? • Experts in the field, aka your fellow scientists, contacted by journal editors. • Work for free. Spend their own time to contribute to scientific community. • Doesn’t have conflict of interests with the author of the manuscript.
  11. 11. https://ucsd.libguides.com/aep-sci/peer How do I decide to be a reviewer? • Accept a paper if it belongs to your field of expertise. • Make sure there is no conflict of interest. • Make sure you have enough time. • Choose high quality journals and conferences.
  12. 12. Peer review process. Reviewer’s work Editor:
 Match to journal topic and adequate formatting Organisation, 
 Readability, 
 Language Study conclusions,
 Limitations,
 Future direction of research Originality, innovation, importance of the study
 +
 Literature review and relevancy Study design, 
 Methods,
 Analysis, 
 Findings
 Reproducibility
  13. 13. Tip. Fix one thing that you review at a time Editor:
 Match to journal topic and adequate formatting Organisation, 
 Readability, 
 Language Study conclusions,
 Limitations,
 Future direction of research Originality, innovation, importance of the study
 +
 Literature review and relevancy Study design, 
 Methods,
 Analysis, 
 Findings
 Reproducibility
  14. 14. Novelty component Originality, innovation, importance of the study
 +
 Literature review and relevancy
  15. 15. Introduction & Problem statement Significance of the problem • what is know about the problem • what is not not known about the problem • how research fills the gap Literature review (can be an independent section) • why is it even important to study?
  16. 16. Aim of the research • Clearly drawn from literature review. • Stated as: hypothesis, review question, research aims, research questions. • Help to evaluate the methods used to address this aim and the reported results.
  17. 17. Shape component Organisation, 
 Readability, 
 Language • Are all essential paper components such as introduction, methods, results, discussion, etc are present? • Do they contain relevant information and are logically connected? • Readability of the text, typos and misplaced or unfinished captions, etc. • Language correction before a submission.
  18. 18. Methods component Study design, 
 Methods,
 Analysis, 
 Findings
 Reproducibility • Do all the experiments and data make sense? • Did the authors carefully designed and performed the experiments • Did they analyse and interpreted the results in a comprehensible way? • Are reported results reproducible?
  19. 19. Methods component Study design, 
 Methods,
 Analysis, 
 Findings
 Reproducibility • Do all the experiments and data make sense? • Did the authors carefully designed and performed the experiments • Did they analyse and interpreted the results in a comprehensible way? • Are reported results reproducible?
  20. 20. Data • FAIR data standards (data which meet principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability). • Use appropriate repository to download and store the data. • Cite dataset DOI. • Provide substantial description of the datasets. • Report the version of the database/time&date of access.
  21. 21. Code • Share your code (use github or similar) • Publish version of your code. Use DOI • Add licence (how other people can use your code) • Add instructions how to install (including dependences) • Document your code
 Add usage guide how to execute your code https://github.com/esugis/hena
  22. 22. Code • Share your code (use github or similar) • Publish version of your code. Use DOI • Add licence (how other people can use your code) • Add instructions how to install (including dependences) • Document your code
 Add usage guide how to execute your code https://github.com/esugis/hena
  23. 23. Code • Share your code (use github or similar) • Publish version of your code. Use DOI • Add licence (how other people can use your code) • Add instructions how to install (including dependences) • Document your code
 Add usage guide how to execute your code https://github.com/esugis/hena
  24. 24. Code. Licences https://help.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archiving-repositories/licensing-a-repository
  25. 25. Code • Share your code (use github or similar) • Publish version of your code. Use DOI • Add licence (how other people can use your code) • Add instructions how to install (including dependences) • Document your code
 Add usage guide how to execute your code https://github.com/esugis/hena
  26. 26. Code • Share your code (use github or similar) • Publish version of your code. Use DOI • Add licence (how other people can use your code) • Add instructions how to install (including dependences) • Document your code
 Add usage guide how to execute your code https://github.com/esugis/hena
  27. 27. Discussion component Study conclusions,
 Limitations,
 Future direction of research
  28. 28. Reviewers findings Peer review of the manuscript X SUMMARY MAJOR COMMENTS MINOR COMMENTS
  29. 29. Reviewers findings Peer review of the manuscript X SUMMARY MAJOR COMMENTS MINOR COMMENTS specify exactly the point of weakness and where in the paper
  30. 30. Reviewers feedback. Bad example. “This makes no sense. 
 I reject this publication/
 major revisions are needed.” NB! This form of the critical comments don’t give an author any actionable feedback. Is my math incorrect? Are the methods inappropriate? Are my conclusions inconsistent?
  31. 31. Reviewers feedback. Good example. Comments should be convertible to action point, e.g. Fix XYZ -> get awesome result
  32. 32. Take home message • Peer-review is there for a reason and it is not scary • As an authors of scientific publications: • pay attention to the reproducibility • become a reviewer • As a peer reviewer: • don’t be harsh • be specific in your comments • provide feedback in action point convertible manner

  33. 33. Contact me Elena Sügis elena.sugis@ut.ee BREW 2020
 21 May 2020

×