Topics covered include: Duties of editors, reviewers, and authors What is “peer review” & brief history Objectives & process of peer review What editors & reviewers are looking for? Surviving the peer review process What leads to ACCEPTANCE

1. Getting your Manuscript Published
Abd Karim Alias@2011

2. ABOUT ME
• Professor of Food Technology
• Survivor of many peer review processes since
1991
• Member of the editorial board of 4 journals (1
international & 3 nationals)
akarim@usm.my OR biopolimer@gmail.com
Website: http://www.indtech.usm.my/karim/AKA/Home.html
Blog: onestoplearning.blogspot.com

3. OUTLINE
• Duties of editors, reviewers, and authors
• What is “peer review” & brief history
• Objectives & process of peer review
• What editors & reviewers are looking for?
• Surviving the peer review process
• Conclusion: what leads to ACCEPTANCE

4. Getting Published – Challenges Ahead
Abd Karim Alias@2011 4

5. Editors, Reviewers, Authors
Editors Reviewers Authors
Abd Karim Alias@2011
5

6. Duties of Editors, Reviewers, Authors
Editors Reviewers Authors
• Publication decision • Contribution to Editorial • Reporting standards
• Fair play Decision • Data Access and Retention
• Confidentiality • Promptness • Originality and Plagiarism
• Disclosure and conflicts • Confidentiality • Multiple, Redundant or
of interest • Disclosure and conflicts Concurrent Publication
of Interest • Acknowledgement of
Sources
• Authorship of the Paper
Abd Karim Alias@2011
6

7. What is “peer review”
Peer review is…
An evaluation process in which experts critique the
work of individuals or groups seeking recognition,
publication, or funding.
Abd Karim Alias@2011 7

8. What is “peer review”
For the publishers…
They rely on effective peer review
processes to uphold not only the
quality and validity of individual
articles, but also the overall integrity
of the journals they publish.
Abd Karim Alias@2011 8

9. Objective of Peer Review Process
Two key functions…
• Acts as a filter: Ensures research is properly
verified before being published
• Improves the quality of the research: rigorous
review by other experts helps to hone key points
and correct inadvertent errorsValidates and
confirms a researcher’s work
Abd Karim Alias@2011 9

10. Objective of Peer Review Process
Other aims…
• An essential part of the publishing process
• Identify the strengths & weaknesses of ideas &
approaches
• Validates and confirms a researcher’s work
• Make recommendations for improvement
Abd Karim Alias@2011 10

11. A Brief History of Peer Review
• Review by peers has been a method of evaluation since ancient
Greece, although it was not standard practise in science until
the mid-20th century
• As early as the 17th century, scientific clubs (or societies) of
gentleman scholars argued over the origin and validity of
different theories and discoveries
• Peer review has been a formal part of scientific communication
since the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years
ago
Abd Karim Alias@2011 11

12. A Brief History of Peer Review
Did you know that…
• Albert Einstein's "Annus Mirabilis" was not peer
reviewed except by the journal's editor in chief and co-
editor?
• Watson’s seminal paper on the structure of DNA was
rejected by the peer review process?
Abd Karim Alias@2011 12

13. Types of Peer Review
1. Journal articles
2. Conference proceedings
3. Book manuscripts
4. Grant proposals
5. Teaching portfolios
6. Promotion decisions
7. Program accreditation
Abd Karim Alias@2011 13

14. Methods of Peer Review
1. Single blind -- authors do not know
the identity of the reviewers
2. Double blind – both authors and
reviewers do not know the identity
of each other.
Double-blinded review provides honest and
critical reviews without fear of retribution
Abd Karim Alias@2011 14

15. Peer review – a gatekeeper but not perfect…
Peer review is not a perfect process, but
it is one of the best ways of ensuring
the quality and originality of a paper.
Abd Karim Alias@2011 15

16. Peer Review Process
RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO JOURNAL
First assessment by editor/editorial board – Ask – Does article fits aims/scope?
Is article of acceptable quality?
NO? YES?
Article rejected/feedback /changes requested Article sent to reviewers
Feedback /changes requested REVIEWER ASSESSES ARTICLE
Check for: significance, novelty, presentation, scholarship,
evidence, reasoning, theory, experimental design, data
REVIEWER MAKES RECOMMENDATION TO EDITOR validation, organization, clarity, ethics
EDITOR MAKES FINAL DECISION
INFORM DECISION TO AUTHOR If minor/major revision, authors can revise & resubmit
Abd Karim Alias@OCTOBER 2011

17. Review process
• Pre-screening
• Is the manuscript within the scope of the
journal?
• Identification of reviewers
• Two or three reviewers
Abd Karim Alias@2011 17

18. Rejecting without review: The Whys, the Hows
“Owing to the very simple ratios of the
number of submissions, the number of papers
we can publish in any given (monthly) issue,
and availability of reviewers, a large fraction
of papers submitted to ACS Nano must be
rejected without review. We receive far more
submissions than we could ever publish, and
thus it is a necessity”…
“Rejecting without review: The Whys, the Hows" , ACS Nano, 4 (9), 4 9 6 3 – 4 9 6 4 (2 0 1 0)
Abd Karim Alias@2011 18

19. Perspective: Some statistics
• Elsevier publishes more than 20 journals in
the food science area
• In 2010, more than 20,000 papers were
submitted to these journals
• In 2010, 5000 papers were published
in these journals
Credit: Amazon.com
Abd Karim Alias@2011 19

20. Perspective: Some statistics
% increase in accepted papers
USA
2006-2010 for selected countries:
Malaysia
17 Elsevier Food
Science Journals
2010
2006
China
USA: 37%
Malaysia: 196%
China: 136%
Brazil Brazil: 109%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Number of accepted papers

21. Rejecting without review: The Whys, the Hows
Editors argue that…
• pre-screening ensures that only those manuscripts
that they believe to have potential to be published in
the journal reach the referees;
• lessening of the chances for a manuscript to dwell
unproductively in an unsuccessful cycle of peer
review
“Rejecting without review: The Whys, the Hows" , ACS Nano, 4 (9), 4 9 6 3 – 4 9 6 4 (2 0 1 0)
Abd Karim Alias@2011 21

22. What are Journal Editors looking for?
Editors are looking for…
• The “wow” factor -- a subject or theme that sheds light
on and gives insight into a perplexing problem or
fundamental issue;
• Novelty -- how original the work is.
• Clarity of presentation
• Value of practical, research, and theoretical implications
“Rejecting without review: The Whys, the Hows" , ACS Nano, 4 (9), 4 9 6 3 – 4 9 6 4 (2 0 1 0)
Abd Karim Alias@2011 22

23. What are Journal Editors looking for?
Editors are looking for…
• Manuscripts that have been written clearly,
concisely, and well and be in the correct format;
• Fit with the scope of the journal? -- the
appropriateness of the work for the journal.
• Citability -- the paper increase the journal’s
citation metrics?
“Rejecting without review: The Whys, the Hows" , ACS Nano, 4 (9), 4 9 6 3 – 4 9 6 4 (2 0 1 0)
Abd Karim Alias@2011 23

24. Importance of Cover Letter to Editor
This is your chance to speak to the editor directly…
• Mention what would make your manuscript
special to the journal;
• The cover letter provides the chance for authors
to persuade the editors of the significance of
their work in a less formal manner than what is
written in the manuscript itself.
“The Art of the Cover Letter" , ACS Nano, 4 (5), 2487 (2 0 1 0)
Abd Karim Alias@2011 24

25. Importance of Cover Letter to Editor
It could be the difference between a
manuscript sent for external review
and one rejected without further
consideration!
“The Art of the Cover Letter" , ACS Nano, 4 (5), 2487 (2 0 1 0)
Abd Karim Alias@2011 25

26. Some advices from Editors
"Some people who send papers ... simply send it to the
wrong journal and that's becoming increasingly the case ...
This can be frustrating as an Editor…
“I imagine there are some people who spend their life
sending their papers to journals that don't want to publish
them, not because they're not good papers but because
they're just in the wrong place."
Read “How to Choose a Journal”
Abd Karim Alias@2011 26

27. Reviewer’s report
One bad review, one good review…
The ‘bad’ one liked it but it was really
superficial – I don’t think they
understood it. The ‘good’ one didn’t like it
much, but the review was just
wonderful…
Abd Karim Alias@2011 27

28. The best reviewer report
…provides a thoughtful and insightful
synopsis of the major points,
strengths, and weaknesses of the
Manuscript reviewed.
“The best referee report" , ACS Nano, 2(2), 177 (2008)
Abd Karim Alias@2011 28

29. The best reviewer report…cont’
…comments on…
• the importance and broad interest of the subject
• the novelty and importance of the work described
• the extent to which data support the conclusions
made
• the quality of the data and the analysis presented
Abd Karim Alias@2011 29

30. The best reviewer report…cont’
…comments on…
• the completeness of the citations
• the clarity of the writing
• the appropriateness of the work for the journal
Abd Karim Alias@2011 30

31. Typical reviewer’s comments
• Lack of clarity in writing/presentation (poor
organization)
• Logic of argument is unclear/vague
• Author is unaware of relevant existing work
• Author misinterprets existing research/theory
Abd Karim Alias@2011 31

32. Typical reviewer’s comments
• Flawed experimental design
• Data is not convincing/flawed
• Contribution to theory, research, and/or practice is
not apparent.
Abd Karim Alias@2011 32

33. Editor’s advice to reviewers
 Be critical!
 Read the abstract first to see if what the authors are
stating makes logical sense, and if it is written in a
way that is comprehensible;
 Is the observation made and reported in the
manuscript something new?
Abd Karim Alias@2011 33

34. Editor’s advice to reviewers
 Examine tables and figures to see if the legends are
clear and if the tables and figures demonstrate the
same thing that is stated in the text;
 Look to see if the statistical analysis seems to make
sense;
 Examine the methods to make sure that the authors
knew what they were doing;
Abd Karim Alias@2011 34

35. Editor’s advice to reviewers
 Read the discussion and see if it makes sense and if it
reflects what the data in the article report. Look for
unnecessary conjecture or unfounded conclusions that
are not based on the evidence presented
 Is the manuscript concise and well organized?
Abd Karim Alias@2011 35

36. Editor’s advice to reviewers
 Is the manuscript full of typographical errors and/or mistakes
in references that imply a sloppy job of putting the
manuscript together?
 Subjectively, do you believe what the authors are telling you
or do you suspect some consistent error in the hypothesis,
methods, analysis of data, etc.? Is there some chance that
there is scientific fraud or plagiarism involved in this
manuscript?
Abd Karim Alias@2011 36

37. Recommendation of Reviewers
 Rejected due to poor quality, or out of scope
 Accept without revision
 Accept but needs revision (either major or minor)
If revision is required, reviewers would
clearly identify what aspects need
attention/revision.
Sample of peer reviewer form
Abd Karim Alias@2011 37

38. What “revision” means?
Major Revision
The editors believe that your article contained information of
potential importance but a number of major issues were raised.
If you believe that you can address the issues raised, the editors
would be willing to reconsider your manuscript, but cannot
guarantee acceptance, particularly if you cannot address the
concerns.
Abd Karim Alias@2011 38

39. What “revision” means?
Minor revision
The editors found your manuscript potentially
acceptable for publication provided you make some
minor adjustments
Abd Karim Alias@2011 39

40. 3 key reason for recommending a manuscript
• The manuscript was considered timely and
relevant to a current problem
• The manuscript was considered well written,
logical, and easy to comprehend
• The study was well designed and had appropriate
methodology
See also “Criteria set by the journal to consider acceptance”
Abd Karim Alias@2011 40

41. Surviving the peer review
Abd Karim Alias@2011 41

42. Surviving the peer review
• Put yourself in the reviewer’s shoes
• Develop a well organized, clearly written
manuscript
• Write for an intelligent but not necessarily expert
reader
• Assume you are addressing individuals with
different types/levels of expertise
Abd Karim Alias@2011 42

43. Surviving the peer review
• Be your own worst critic
• Would an “non-expert” understand why your work is
important?
• Have you clearly communicated your ideas &
methods?
• Are your claims justifiable?
• Do your conclusions logically follow from your
findings?
Abd Karim Alias@2011 43

44. When your paper is rejected…
Good advice on what to do when paper get
rejected (link)
Abd Karim Alias@2011 44

45. What leads to acceptance…
Attention to details
Check and double check your work
Consider the reviewers’ comments
English must be as good as possible
Presentation is important
Take your time with revision
Acknowledge those who have helped you
New, original and previously unpublished
Critically evaluate your own manuscript
Nigel John Cook
Ethical rules must be obeyed Editor-in-Chief, Ore Geology Reviews
Abd Karim Alias@2011 45

46. Why is it important to write a good paper?
Before submitting an article make sure it is as
good as you can make it.
Not only because it makes YOUR life easy…but also
the lives of the Editors and Reviewers
…your chances of acceptance will be increased!
Abd Karim Alias@2011 46

47. Why is it important to write a good paper?
Don’t submit “half-
baked” manuscript!
Abd Karim Alias@2011 47

48. An international editorfrequently:
The following problems appear much too
says:
• Submission of papers which are clearly out of scope
• Failure to format the paper according to the Guide for Authors
• Inappropriate (or no) suggested reviewers
• Inadequate response to reviewers
• Inadequate standard of English
• Resubmission of rejected manuscripts without revision
Paul Haddad, Editor, Journal of Chromatography A
48

49. An my own publishing advice is:
…and international editor says:
• Submit to the right journal
• Submit to one journal only
• Do not submit “salami” articles
• Pay attention to journal requirements and structure
• Check the English
• Pay attention to ethical standards
• Ask your colleagues to proof read the article
• Be self-critical
49

50. Abd Karim Alias@2011 50